[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO EXAMINE THE ROLE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM IN RELATION TO OTHER FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT, AND NUTRITION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 24, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-18
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-943 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
STEVE KING, Iowa MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JIM COSTA, California
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BOB GIBBS, Ohio MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee FILEMON VELA, Texas
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
JEFF DENHAM, California JUAN VARGAS, California
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DOUG LaMALFA, California SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
TED S. YOHO, Florida
VANCE M. McALLISTER, Louisiana
______
Nicole Scott, Staff Director
Kevin J. Kramp, Chief Counsel
Tamara Hinton, Communications Director
Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and Nutrition
STEVE KING, Iowa, Chairman
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio, Ranking
BOB GIBBS, OHIO Minority Member
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
VANCE M. McALLISTER, Louisiana GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, California
----
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from Ohio,
opening statement.............................................. 5
King, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from Iowa, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Lujan Grisham, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from
New Mexico, supplementary information.......................... 59
Witnesses
Squier, Sidonie, Secretary, New Mexico Human Services Department,
Santa Fe, NM; on behalf of Secretary's Innovation Group........ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Doar, Robert, Morgridge Fellow in Poverty Studies, American
Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.......................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Dean, Stacy, Vice President for Food Assistance Policy, Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, D.C.................. 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
HEARING TO EXAMINE THE ROLE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM IN RELATION TO OTHER FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and
Nutrition,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Steve King
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives King, Scott, Gibbs,
McAllister, Lucas (ex officio), Fudge, McGovern, Lujan Grisham,
and Negrete McLeod.
Staff present: Josh Mathis, Kevin Kramp, Mary Nowak, Nicole
Scott, Skylar Sowder, Tamara Hinton, Lisa Shelton, Liz
Friedlander, and Robert L. Larew.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM IOWA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Department Operations, Oversight, and Nutrition to examine the
role of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in
relation to other Federal assistance programs, will come to
order. The chair will recognize himself for an opening
statement.
First, I want to thank you all for being here today to
discuss a program that serves a vital role: feeding the hungry.
Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. I look forward
to hearing your testimony.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the role of
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--or as we call
it, SNAP--in relation to other Federal assistance programs such
as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF
program, and school meals.
SNAP is the Federal Government's primary food assistance
program that currently serves on average 47 million people per
month. SNAP benefits are fully financed by the Federal
Government and cost-share between states and the Federal
Government is in place for administrative costs only.
No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, we can all
agree on the importance of SNAP and helping those in need.
However, with soaring deficits and out-of-control national
debt, we must be mindful of this grave financial situation. We,
as Members of Congress, have a responsibility to the American
people to oversee Federal programs paid for by the taxpayer to
ensure that they are operating in the most efficient, cost-
effective manner.
SNAP is a program that has seen considerable growth in
recent years. Since 2008, the cost of the program has more than
doubled. And while the recession has certainly played a part in
the dramatic growth of the program, there have been policies
put in place by the current Administration to expand
participation. It is my hope that today we can all learn more
about these policies and take a look into the growth of SNAP.
As you all know, my colleagues and I recently finished the
lengthy process of passing a farm bill. And while I think I can
speak for the rest of my colleagues in saying that I am pleased
to have that job behind us--I know I speak for the Chairman
when I say that--the job of Congress is never finished. We must
continue to educate each other on Federal programs and exercise
our responsibility of oversight.
One particular concern of mine, which we attempted to
address in the farm bill, is the interaction of SNAP it has
with the Low Income Heat Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Act of 1981 provide that low-income
households receiving any LIHEAP payments will also qualify for
SNAP, SNAP's Standard Utility Allowance, or SUA. SUA is our
standardized amount used in place of actual utility costs to
calculate a household's shelter costs when determining SNAP
benefits, and which can be used essentially to plus up
eligibility.
Unfortunately, in the last several years states have been
taking advantage of a loophole in how LIHEAP payments interact
with SNAP benefit calculations. Any amount of LIHEAP assistance
allowed a household to automatically receive the SNAP SUA.
Since SNAP benefits are 100 percent Federal dollars, states
have been using this loophole to bring more SNAP benefits to
their state, increasing the cost to the Federal Government,
and, I would add, transferring wealth across the countryside.
Consequently, there were approximately 16 states and the
District of Columbia that had been sending payments as low as
10 to low-income households so they may take advantage of SNAP
SUA. In the farm bill we addressed this loophole by requiring a
householder receive a minimum LIHEAP payment of $20 before they
can receive the SNAP SUA. However, there have been a number of
states, and I will name them--New York, Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Montana, Oregon, Massachusetts--
seven states in all announced that they will continue to, let
me say, expand and utilize this loophole by sending out $20
LIHEAP statements payments to continue the heat-and-eat abuse.
In addition, there are three states considering the same
actions, at least as has been reported in the press, and that
would be California, Wisconsin, and Vermont. Also, Speaker
Boehner has strongly voiced his objection to this kind of
abuse.
Continued use of the heat-and-eat loophole threatens the
amount of savings that will actually be achieved with SNAP
reform. This Committee is concerned, as I am. I hope throughout
the hearing we will be able to hear from our panelists about
this issue.
Before us today is a panel of three witnesses that have an
extensive knowledge of SNAP and have seen firsthand how many of
these programs interact. We are joined by Sidonie Squier,
Secretary for Human Services Department in New Mexico, as well
as a member of the Secretary's Innovation Group, or SIG.
Secretary Squier has experienced working as an Associate
Commissioner with the Texas Health and Human Services
Commission, as well as Director of Economic Self-Sufficiency
and Welfare Reform Administrator of the Florida Department of
Children and Families.
We have also Robert Doar, who is currently a Fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute. Previously, Mr. Doar served as a
Commissioner of New York City's Human Resources Administration,
where he administered 12 public assistance programs. Most
recently, Mr. Doar has been appointed to the National Hunger
Commission, a bipartisan panel tasked with developing
recommendations to reduce the need for government nutrition
programs while maintaining a safety net for the poor.
And we have Stacy Dean, Vice President for Food Assistance
Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ms. Dean
brings a unique perspective, having previously worked in the
Office of Management and Budget before spending the last 17
years working extensively with program administration and
policymakers on nutrition policy.
We appreciate the time each of you has given us to prepare
for this hearing. Your testimony will be very helpful for us to
better understand how SNAP interacts with other Federal
programs. I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve King, a Representative in Congress
from Iowa
Good afternoon.
Thank you all for being here today to discuss a program that serves
a vital role: feeding the hungry. Thank you to our witnesses for
joining us today. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the role of the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or as we call it, SNAP, in
relation to other Federal assistance programs, such as the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program and School Meals.
SNAP is the Federal Government's primary food assistance program
that currently serves on average 47 million people per month. SNAP
benefits are fully financed by the Federal Government, and a cost-share
between states and the Federal Government is in place for
administrative costs.
No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, we can all agree on
the importance of SNAP in helping those in need. However, with soaring
deficits and an out of control national debt, we must be mindful of
this grave fiscal situation. We as Members of Congress have a
responsibility to the American people to oversee Federal programs paid
for by the taxpayer to ensure that they are operating in the most
efficient, cost-effective manner.
SNAP is a program that has seen considerable growth in recent
years. Since 2008, the cost of the program has more than doubled. While
the recession has certainly played a part in the dramatic growth of the
program, there have been policies put in place by the current
Administration to expand participation. It is my hope that today we can
all learn more about these policies and take a closer look into the
growth of SNAP.
As you all know, my colleagues and I recently finished the lengthy
process of passing a farm bill. While I think I can speak for the rest
of my colleagues in saying that I am pleased to have that behind us,
the job of Congress is never finished. We must continue to educate
ourselves on Federal programs and exercise our responsibility of
oversight.
One particular concern of mine, which we attempted to address in
the farm bill, is the interaction SNAP has with the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Act of 1981 provide that low-income households receiving any
LIHEAP payments will also qualify for the SNAP Standard Utility
Allowance (SUA). SUAs are a standardized amount used in place of actual
utility costs to calculate a household's shelter costs when determining
SNAP benefits.
Unfortunately, in the last several years, states have been taking
advantage of a loophole in how LIHEAP payments interact with SNAP
benefit calculation. Any amount of LIHEAP assistance allows a household
to automatically receive the SNAP SUA. Since SNAP benefits are 100
percent Federal dollars, states have been using this loophole to bring
more SNAP benefits to their state, increasing costs to the Federal
Government.
Consequently, there were approximately 16 states and the District
of Columbia that had been sending payments as low as 10 to low-income
households so they may take advantage of the SNAP SUA.
In the farm bill, we addressed this loophole by requiring a
household to receive a minimum LIHEAP payment of $20 before they can
receive the SNAP SUA. However, there have been a number of states (New
York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, Pennsylvania
Gov. Tom Corbett, Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, Montana Gov. Steve
Bullock, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, and Massachusetts Gov. Deval
Patrick) announced that they will continue to extort this loophole by
sending out $20 LIHEAP payments to continue the ``Heat and Eat'' scam.
In addition, three states are considering the same actions (California
Gov. Jerry Brown, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and Vermont Gov. Peter
Shumlin). ``Since the passage of the farm bill, states have found ways
to cheat, once again, on signing up people for food stamps,'' said
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). ``And so I would hope that the House would
act to try to stop this cheating and this fraud from continuing.''
Continued use of the ``Heat and Eat'' loophole threatens the amount
of savings that will actually be achieved with SNAP reform. This is
very concerning to me. I hope throughout the hearing, we will be able
to hear from our panelists about this issue.
Before us today is a panel of three witnesses that have an
extensive knowledge of SNAP and have seen firsthand how many of these
programs interact.
We are joined by Sidonie Squier, Secretary for the Human Services
Department in New Mexico as well as a member of the Secretary's
Innovation Group. Secretary Squier has experience working as an
Associate Commissioner with the Texas Health and Human Services
Commission as well as Director of Economic Self-Sufficiency and Welfare
Reform Administrator in the Florida Department of Children and
Families.
We have Robert Doar, who is currently a Fellow at the American
Enterprise Institute. Previously Mr. Doar served as Commissioner of New
York City's Human Resources Administration where he administered 12
public assistance programs. Most recently, Mr. Doar has been appointed
to the National Hunger Commission, a bipartisan panel tasked with
developing recommendations to reduce the need for government nutrition
programs while maintaining a safety net for the poor.
Last, we have Stacy Dean, Vice President for Food Assistance Policy
at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ms. Dean brings a unique
perspective, having previously worked at the Office of Management and
Budget before spending the last 17 years working extensively with
program administrators and policymakers on nutrition policy.
We appreciate the time each of you has given to prepare for this
hearing. Your testimony will be very helpful for us to better
understand how SNAP interacts with other Federal programs. Thank you.
I would like to recognize my colleague from Ohio, Ranking Member
Fudge, for any opening remarks she may have.
The Chairman. And I would like to now recognize my
colleague from Ohio, Ranking Member Fudge, for any opening
remarks she may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCIA L. FUDGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OHIO
Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say
I just received notice that they have called votes. And so,
unfortunately, as we thought might happen, we are going to be
playing around our vote schedule. But I will start, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you so much for holding this hearing today on
SNAP.
And I thank all of our witness for being here.
It is certainly timely to have our first hearing of this
Subcommittee on SNAP. I am glad to have this opportunity for us
to learn more about this program. Earlier this year, the
President signed into law a bipartisan farm bill where Members
of both sides of the aisle and across Chambers were able to
reach a consensus and show the country Congress can indeed work
together.
I don't think anyone was fully happy with the compromise
reached, but on balance it met the needs of the American people
by providing certainty and sound agricultural policies for our
consumers, farmers, and ranchers.
It is important to talk about the farm bill in the context
of today's hearing, because SNAP was one of the many
controversial issues we had to work through in order to reach a
compromise. That is why it is concerning to me when I hear
reports of some of my colleagues wanting to suggest changes to
a law that was enacted just a few months ago and is still in
the process of being implemented.
We negotiated the farm bill for the last 3 years, and it is
now time to move on. Going forward, I hope we can better
educate ourselves on nutrition programs in preparation for the
next farm bill.
Statistics show that SNAP is working well. It is a powerful
antipoverty program that has been efficient, effective, and
highly responsive to the needs of the people. According to the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, SNAP lifted nearly 4.7
million Americans out of poverty in 2011, including about 2.1
million children. Further, SNAP benefits often function as an
economic stimulus, as every $1 in SNAP benefits generates about
$1.70 in economic activity.
Critics of the program like to point out that the number of
participants has risen in recent times. This is not surprising,
as growth can largely be attributed to the recession. The
number of unemployed Americans increased by 94 percent from
2007 to 2011, and SNAP responded with a 70 percent increase
over the same period. However, SNAP enrollment growth slowed in
2012 as the economy began to recover. Also, the Congressional
Budget Office predicts that SNAP spending will begin to decline
in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation
returning to pre-recession levels by 2022.
These statistics show that SNAP is operating as it should,
providing a supplemental source of funds to assist families
with food purchases during tough times. The farm bill created
pilot work programs with a focus on employment and training.
Current law requires--I say requires--SNAP participants to
register for work, accept job offers, and participate in
workshare or training programs if they are offered. States may
also require job training.
Over the last decade the number of low-income working
households on SNAP has risen dramatically, from two million in
2000 to about 6.4 million in 2011. This disappointing trend
reflects both a rise in SNAP participation among eligible low-
income working households, as well as wage erosion at the low
end of the wage scale. Some workers earn wages so low that even
full-time, year-round employment is inadequate to keep their
family out of poverty. In fact, the share of workers with
below-poverty wages was 28 percent in 2011.
Further, there is often more to the story than meets the
eye regarding those SNAP participants who do not work. These
individuals are not lazy. Rather, in many cases they lack the
necessary job skills for employment or access to affordable
child care and transportation.
I am hopeful the pilot programs created by the farm bill
will produce innovative approaches to ensuring low-income
working families can secure employment with adequate wages, so
they can lift themselves out of poverty and off of SNAP.
Contrary to what some critics of the program may believe,
most Americans want a hand up, not a handout. As Members of the
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and
Nutrition, it is imperative that we take the time to fully
understand the intricacies of SNAP.
As I said at the beginning of my statement, I hope this is
an issue we can continue to explore as we look ahead to the
next farm bill. We have invited three experts witnesses to this
hearing so we can learn more about SNAP and how it interacts
with other Federal assistance programs. I am looking forward to
hearing what they have to say.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank Ranking Member Fudge for her opening
statement and turn to the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr.
Lucas, for any statement he might have.
Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman, I would waive off a statement in
recognition of the fact that we have a vote underway on the
floor.
The Chairman. I thank the Chairman. And I would point out
that we are nearly 10 minutes into the vote that has been
called and roughly 5 or so minutes left to go on to that tally.
We expect that it is going to be a relatively long series of
votes, perhaps an hour. But this hearing is in recess, subject
to the call of the chair. And I advise the Members that it is
my intention to resume the hearing immediately after the series
of votes. Thank you.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The chair will call this hearing back to
order and refresh us on our status: that is that the opening
statements were concluded, the witnesses were introduced, and
other Members were asked to include any opening statement into
the record.
And at this point, I would like to recognize Ms. Squier for
her testimony.
STATEMENT OF SIDONIE SQUIER, SECRETARY, NEW MEXICO HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT, SANTA FE, NM; ON BEHALF OF SECRETARY'S
INNOVATION GROUP
Ms. Squier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am very appreciative of this opportunity to appear
as the Secretary of New Mexico's Department of Human Services.
My Department administers food stamps, TANF, Medicaid, LIHEAP
and many other human service programs.
In addition, I am a member of the Secretary's Innovation
Group.
The Chairman. Can you pull the microphone a little closer,
please?
Ms. Squier. I can. And that is a network of 17 human
service secretaries reporting to their governors from states
that represent 34 percent of the U.S. Our members favor
policies that promote work, self-sufficiency, and healthy
families.
Last year, and this year, we were pleased to work with
Members of this Committee and Representative Steve Southerland
in the development and passage of the ten state food stamp work
demonstration to be implemented no later than February of this
coming year. I am pretty sure New Mexico is going to be
involved in that.
The Food Stamp Program, or SNAP, is a food supplement
program whose intended purpose is to assure individuals with
the very lowest incomes have enough to eat. But, regrettably,
this program has strayed from its earlier worthwhile purpose.
As a way of comparison, in the year of 2001, one out of every
14 households received food stamps. But in just a little more
than a decade, one in five American households has now become
dependent on taxpayer-funded food assistance.
Is it likely that the proportion of American households
unable to afford the purchase of sufficient food has increased
more than threefold during that period? At the same time, the
number of nonworking, able-bodied households receiving benefits
has ballooned. If you will look, you will see a chart that
shows just that. It is very simple so I don't think I need to
walk you through it.
The financial costs of distributing free food to such a
large portion of American families is a substantial burden on
the average American taxpayer. Currently, 65 million households
pay net Federal income tax. The rest pay nothing or else they
receive a payment through the EITC. The amount of annual
Federal income taxes needed to pay food stamp benefits is an
astonishing $1,300 per income-taxpaying households. With an
average food stamp monthly benefit of $275, this means that
each Federal income-taxpaying household is buying almost 5
months of groceries for other families each year.
With food stamp usage now cutting a swath well into the
middle class, is it fair to ask if we were anticipating that
average Americans would be buying each other their groceries
through the Federal Government?
The recent recession has absolutely played a role in the
enrollment surge, but it does not account for the size. As the
chart below again very clearly shows, food stamp caseloads have
gone up and down during periods of expansion and contraction
without close correlation to the economic conditions. For
example, during the period of strong economic growth between
2001 and 2007, food stamp caseloads increased by more than 50
percent.
More significant factors include Federal policy changes, in
particular the aggressive Federal pressure on states to recruit
additional beneficiaries, combined with the loosening of
eligibility rules through a provision of law called categorical
eligibility. Categorical eligibility permits households to
bypass the normal income limit of 130 percent of the poverty
level and the resource limit also of $2,000 to $3,250 imposed
by SNAP if these households are eligible for TANF or SSI or the
State General Assistance Program.
The Chairman. Ms. Squier?
Ms. Squier. Yes.
The Chairman. As the clock has ticked down on the 5
minutes, could I ask you to summarize the balance of your
testimony, and we will try get the rest of it in questions,
please?
Ms. Squier. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Squier. So the thing that I want to bring home the most
today, I won't even read it, is that because of this provision
called categorical eligibility, in New Mexico, for instance,
anybody who touches the TANF program--which can be anybody in
the state, because the TANF program touches things like
marriage or counseling or fatherhood that don't have anything
to do with assets at all. So you could have millions of dollars
in the bank and still be eligible for food stamps just because
you are touched by a TANF program, even something as simple as
a brochure.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Squier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sidonie Squier, Secretary, New Mexico Human
Services Department, Santa Fe, NM; on Behalf of Secretary's Innovation
Group
Greetings Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity. As the Secretary of New Mexico's
Department of Human Services, our department administers Food Stamps,
TANF, Medicaid and other human service programs. In addition, I am a
member of the Secretary's Innovation Group, a network of 17 state human
services secretaries reporting to their governors from states
representing 34% of the U.S. Our members actively seek to promote
policies that advance work, self-sufficiency and healthy families. Last
year and this year we were pleased to work with Members of this
Committee and Rep. Steve Southerland toward the development and passage
in the farm bill of the ten state Food Stamp Work Demonstration to be
implemented no later than February of this coming year.
The Food Stamp program, or SNAP, is a food supplement program whose
intended purpose is to assure individuals with the very lowest incomes
have enough to eat. But regrettably the program has strayed from this
earlier worthwhile purpose. As a way of comparison, in the year 2001,
one out of every fourteen U.S. households received Food Stamps. But in
just a little more than a decade one in five American households has
now become dependent on taxpayer funded food assistance. Is it likely
that the proportion of American households unable to afford the
purchase of sufficient food has increased more than threefold during
this period? \1\ At the same time the number of beneficiaries who are
able bodied and not working has ballooned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data from Congressional Research Service; Food and Nutrition
Service; U.S. Census Bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Declining During the Five Year Period After TANF Work-Based
Reforms, Non-Working Able Bodied Food Stamp Households Jump
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture. Excludes elderly and disabled.
The financial costs of distributing free food to such a large
proportion of American families is a substantial burden on the average
American taxpayer. To place this in perspective, sixty five million
households pay net Federal income tax (the rest pay nothing or else
receive a cash payment via the EITC).\2\ The amount of Federal income
taxes needed to pay Food Stamp benefits for 1 year is an astonishing
$1,300 on average per income taxpaying household.\3\ The average Food
Stamp monthly benefit is $275 which means that each Federal income
taxpaying household is buying almost 5 months of groceries for other
families each year.\4\ With Food Stamp usage now at one in five
families and cutting a swath well into the middle class, is it fair to
ask if we were anticipating that this many Americans would be buying
each other their groceries through the Federal Government?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Tax Policy Center estimates that 56.7 percent of households
paid Federal income taxes in 2013 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/
taxtopics/federal-taxes-households.cfm). There were an average of 115.2
million American households in the period between 2008-2012 (Census
Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html).
Accordingly, approximately 65 million households had net Federal income
tax liability in 2013.
\3\ Those with high earnings contribute more than $1,300 per year;
those with low earnings less. The middle \1/5\ of American households
pay $12,800 in annual Federal income taxes.
\4\ Average monthly benefit per household 2013, FNS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent recession has played a role in the Food Stamp enrollment
surge, but it does not account for its size. As the chart below shows,
Food Stamp caseloads have gone up and down during periods of expansion
and contraction without close correlation to economic conditions. For
example during the recent period of strong national economic growth
between 2001 and 2007 Food Stamp caseloads nevertheless increased by
more than 50%.\5\ More significant factors accounting for the
enrollment surge relate to Federal policy changes, in particular the
aggressive Federal pressure on states to recruit additional
beneficiaries, combined with the loosening of eligibility rules. One of
these loosened standards is a provision called ``broad based
categorical eligibility''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Food and Nutrition Service program participation tables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Stamp Caseload Changes Do Not Directly Correlate to Economic
Conditions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Food and Nutrition Service; U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture; and Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Dept. of
Commerce.
Broad based categorical eligibility allows households to bypass the
normal income limit of 130% of poverty and resource limit of $2,000 to
$3,250 imposed by SNAP if these households are eligible for TANF, SSI
or state general assistance programs.\6\ The original idea was that
these other programs have their own income and resource tests, more
stringent than Food Stamps, and therefore calculating a separate
eligibility determination just for Food Stamps was redundant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For a detailed description of SNAP eligibility requirements see
GAO-12-670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However this is no longer the case, because an entire state's
population can now be eligible for TANF services. With the passage of
1996 welfare reform law, the nature of the new TANF program broadened
beyond cash assistance, so that now less than 30% of TANF expenditures
are made in the form of traditional cash distribution.\7\ Other
services, for example efforts to reduce out of wedlock pregnancies or
to promote two parent families, are potentially available to a state's
entire population, and subsidized child care represents an increasing
share of benefit dollars.\8\ Under current FNS guidance, even the
distribution of a TANF brochure or an 800 information number qualifies
an individual as a ``TANF beneficiary'' and triggers SNAP categorical
eligibility.\9\ In a paper issued under contract to USDA, researchers
concluded that elimination of the asset test in a state inflates the
Food Stamp caseload by an estimated 22%.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ CRS, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Categorical
Eligibility. In FY 2011 29% of benefits were in the form of cash.
\8\ Ibid.
\9\ Under categorical eligibility Federal asset and income tests
are substituted by state limits if any.
\10\ Karen Cunnyngham and James Ohls, Simulated Effects of Changes
to State and Federal Asset Eligibility Policies for the Food Stamp
Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 49, October 2008, p. xvi, http://
naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/26691/PDF. GAO estimates are lower; see
GAO-12-670, Improved Oversight of State Eligibility Expansions Needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009 FNS sent a directive to its regional administrators (copy
below) stating that: ``We encourage you to continue promoting
categorical eligibility as a way to increase SNAP participation and
reduce state workloads''. In that year and the next, twenty eight new
states adopted categorical eligibility (including New Mexico under a
prior Administration), and as of now 43 states have adopted the
provision.\11\ We think that this FNS policy directive was misguided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GAO-12-670; and CRS, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program: Categorical Eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the aggressive attempts by FNS to expand the Food Stamp
program using broad based categorical eligibility, those with sizeable
savings or assets were expected to use these resources before asking
for taxpayer funded food assistance. Similarly, those who were employed
and earning a lower middle class income or above (130% of poverty or
more) were expected to buy their own groceries out of their earnings.
This is no longer necessarily the case.
During the consideration of the farm bill, the House voted to end
the categorical eligibility provision, although it was retained in the
final version. I think, as do the members of the Secretary's Innovation
Group, that categorical eligibility as currently constituted is not
prudent, and that the House may wish to reconsider this part of the law
and FNS practice in its promotion to states.
Thank you.
Letter from USDA Encouraging States To Increase Food Stamp Caseloads of
Households With Income and Assets Over Limit Using Categorical
Eligibility
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix
Reforming Food Stamps (SNAP)
By The Secretary's Innovation Group
November 2012
Principal Authors:
Maura Corrigan, Lead Secretary, Michigan Department of Human Services
Lillian Koller, Director, South Carolina Department of Social
Services
Suzy Sonnier, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Children and Family
Services
Phyllis Gillmore, Secretary, Kansas Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamp
program, was unaffected by the welfare reforms of the 1990s. Because it
lacks the work requirements of the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program, it does little to promote self-sufficiency.
Nor can it properly be called a nutrition program, as there are no
limitations or incentives in place to promote the purchase of healthy
food.
The food stamp program is the second most expensive means-tested
government assistance program after Medicaid. It is part of a system of
sixty programs that provide cash, food, housing, and social services to
low-income Americans, and is one of twelve programs that provide food
assistance to the poor. As with all the other cash and in-kind
benefits, food stamps should be analyzed in the context of the much
larger means-tested system. Total means-tested Federal and state
spending has more than doubled over the past decade, increasing from
$431 billion in 2000 to $927 billion in 2011. The food stamp portion of
this spending has increased more than four times, from $20 billion in
2000 to $85 billion in 2011.
Fundamental reform of the food stamp program is needed to control
costs, ensure that limited resources are used to benefit those truly in
need, and to refocus the program on promoting employment and self-
sufficiency for able-bodied, working-age recipients. The best way to
accomplish these goals is by converting the program to a fixed
allocation, changing eligibility and work requirements, and allowing
states significant flexibility in implementing those requirements. This
would enable states to use the strategies that have proven effective
under the TANF program. In addition, states should have the authority
and obligation to pursue robust anti-fraud and recoupment programs.
Problems With the Food Stamp Program as Currently Constituted
Lack of Reciprocity
There is an imbalance in fairness between the taxpayer and many
recipients of food stamps. The program has left behind its original
purpose of feeding those who might literally go hungry, and now cuts a
swath deep into the middle class, subsidizing food purchases among many
who are clearly able to afford their nutritional needs. The current
food stamp program asks almost nothing from most non-working, able-
bodied recipients in order to obtain these benefits--not to work, to
look for work, or to prepare for work. Like the successful welfare
reform of the 1990s, the program should be restructured so that it is
primarily a temporary safety net designed to move most recipients to
self-sufficiency.
Long Term Dependency
Historically, about \1/2\ of food stamp assistance has gone to
families with children who have received benefits for more than 8
years. The current program is failing to promote self-sufficiency.
Given the sharp increase in caseloads since 2008, there is a danger
that long-term dependency will be created among a new segment of
formerly self-sufficient individuals and families. By 2010, one in five
American households were receiving food stamps, and more than half of
the 10.5 million households with at least one able-bodied, working-age
adult had no employed member. Another million to two million households
included adults who worked less than full time.
Recipients Are No Longer Asked To Look to Their Own Resources First
Before Asking for Public Transfers
Half of all current recipients are eligible for food stamps because
of the expansion of a loophole that eliminates restrictions on the
amount of assets an applicant may have and still qualify. In prior
years, those with temporarily low incomes but large savings or assets
were expected to use those resources before turning to food stamps.
Thus, those reaching the end of unemployment benefits but with
thousands in the bank, and farmers who had a bad year but had millions
in land and equipment were not eligible for food stamps. This
appropriate ``asset test'' has effectively been made moot by the
expansion of a loophole called ``broad based categorical eligibility.''
Under this provision, applicants can be deemed ``categorically
eligible'' as a result of having received any TANF-funded service. This
could be as little as having received a brochure or an 800 number
referral for social services. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has
encouraged the use of ``categorical eligibility'' to increase the asset
limit or eliminate the asset test for eligibility. This is one reason
that food stamp enrollment has surged.
Federal Rules Lack Checks Against Improper Payments and Fraud
The program as federally administered has weakened efforts to
ensure proper use of funds. Face to face eligibility applications and
reviews are no longer mandatory, nor is there an emphasis on the
fastest growing source of fraud--by retailers diverting funds to the
cash black economy. USDA rules preclude states from using their own
investigators to track down this enormous illegal diversion of funds.
One of the byproducts of the introduction of a food stamp work program
is that it will significantly reduce the amount of funds going to
otherwise employed recipients who cannot be in two places at once.
The Secretary's Innovation Group Recommends these fundamental
reforms:
1. Food stamps should be converted to a fixed allocation with work
requirements, conceptually similar to TANF, but with
differences to match its differing population and benefit
structure. For cases with an able-bodied adult not working, an
expectation of 30 hours of weekly work activity per family
should be the norm. The elderly and disabled should be exempt
from work requirements, as under current TANF law. Because of
the recent explosive growth of the food stamp population, work
requirements would be phased in as budgets permit, with TANF
funds and employment infrastructure an eligible source for the
operation of the state food stamp work program.
2. Work requirements under the proposed food stamp fixed allocation
should be non-waivable, comparable to a proper reading of
current TANF law. Any reductions in Federal funding levels for
states not operating a food stamp work program as required
should be imposed within 24 months after the putative year of
non-compliance.
3. A state's fixed allocation grant amount should be set at the
level the state receives at the time the program is converted
to a fixed allocation. Shared ongoing savings from reductions
in food stamp dependency over time would be allocated as
follows:
For expenditures in subsequent years that exceed the
base year, the Fed-
eral Government and state bear the cost of the increase
equally.
For expenditures in subsequent years that are lower than
the base year,
the Federal Government and state share the savings
equally.
For expenditures below FFY 2008 levels, the state
retains 100% of the sav-
ings.
4. States will submit an annual plan that must be accepted by the
USDA if it meets the following requirements:
States must incorporate a work program as described in
paragraph 1 above.
States must incorporate robust up-front and ongoing
eligibility tests, includ-
ing an asset test.
States must incorporate rigorous detection and funds
recapture provisions
for intentional program violations by individual
recipients and commercial
retailers.
States must assure that food stamp funds are limited for
the purchase of
nutritious food.
Adopting the Secretary's Innovation Group recommendations will
activate millions and reserve resources for those most in need.
A move of the food stamp program away from its current function as
a straight income transfer program into a temporary program for able
bodied working-age recipients, while supporting only those most in need
among the aged and disabled, will re-balance it. As with TANF, states
will use their fixed annual allocations to maximize the impact of their
resources dedicated to increasing work levels. It will not be possible
to engage all current non-working food stamp recipients in work levels
comparably broad to TANF at the outset, but experience shows that work
requirements phased in judiciously, first for new applicants, then for
the rest as budget savings are realized, will have immediate
constructive impacts on employment and caseloads, and a longer term
realignment of funds so as to support those most in need.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Squier.
And the chair now recognizes Mr. Doar for his 5 minute
testimony.
Mr. Doar.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT DOAR, MORGRIDGE FELLOW IN
POVERTY STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Mr. Doar. Thank you, Chairman King, Ranking Member Fudge,
and other Members of the Committee. I greatly appreciate being
invited to testify today about the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program. My name is Robert Doar, and I am the
Morgridge Fellow in Poverty Studies at the American Enterprise
Institute.
Prior to joining AEI, I spent 18 years working in
government social services programs for the State and City of
New York. For most of those years, I had significant
responsibilities for the operation of the SNAP program.
And let me say first, SNAP plays an important role helping
struggling American families. The assistance it provides
alleviates material hardship, reduces poverty, and combats
hunger among poor children, the elderly, and the disabled. All
Americans can be proud of the enormous amount of relief SNAP
provides to struggling Americans.
SNAP also can provide needed financial assistance to low-
income working families to make low wages go further. For a
single mother with two children working full-time, SNAP can
provide more than $2,500 annually in assistance to purchase
food. And when combined with the Federal Earned Income Tax
Credit and Child Tax Credit, that assistance can make the
effective compensation of an $8 an hour job the equivalent of
more than $11 per hour. And if public health insurance or
Medicaid is also provided and taken into account, then you can
see the way in which America's generous assistance programs
make low-wage work pay.
But SNAP is not perfect. And as someone who strongly
endorsed the work support aspect of the program while I was
Commissioner in New York City, I have been disturbed at the
extent to which in the past 10 years it has become a program
that both supports work, but when combined with other
assistance programs appears to also be discouraging work.
SNAP and some other assistance programs lack a strong work
requirement. And it appears from data provided by USDA that an
increasing number of non-elderly, non-disabled adults are not
are receiving SNAP benefits but are not reporting any earnings
to the SNAP offices.
This is troubling for two reasons. First, it raises the
question, how are these families getting by on only the aid
provided by food stamps, which was never intended to cover all
of the needs of a family? And second, shouldn't these
recipients of government assistance at least be strongly
encouraged to take part in an effort to get them back to work
where their incomes can rise more significantly?
If the goal of expanding SNAP access to the program was to
make SNAP more of a work support for low-income workers, then
the data should show more recipients reporting earnings to the
food stamp offices.
Another troubling aspect of the most recent past for the
SNAP program is the extent to which it is no longer as
responsive to an improving economy and lower unemployment as it
once was. As the chart in my testimony shows, the longstanding
pattern of SNAP going up with high unemployment and down with
low unemployment seems to have been broken. So that now, 5
years after the end of the recession the expected drop in SNAP
use has not occurred as it has in the past.
In the 4 years following the recession of the early 1980s,
during which unemployment levels rivaled those in the most
recent recession, the number of food stamp participants
decreased by over two million and food stamp participants as a
percentage of the population dropped by over 1.5 percent.
The past 5 years have not followed this pattern of economic
recovery. In the 4 years following the end of the downturn in
2009, the number of SNAP recipients increased by 7.3 million.
Moreover, the percentage of population receiving food stamps
increased from 13 percent to 15 percent.
Were this recent recovery to have behaved similarly to that
of the 1980s, by 2013 only 11.5 percent of the population would
have been receiving SNAP benefits, 36 million individuals, as
opposed to 47.6 million individuals. That is not a small
difference.
Now, there are all sorts of forces at work here. It could
be that the recovery is just too weak, and certainly that is
part of the story in many parts of the country. And some of the
increase in recipients is due to households who have some work.
But there is also a component of this development which is
caused by the combination of assistance programs which do not
have a work requirement contributing to a situation where the
motivation to work at all has been diminished or the motivation
to work off the books has been increased.
I am concerned about this, not because I am against helping
poor Americans buy food for themselves and their children, as
my record of promoting the Food Stamp Program in New York makes
clear. I have been a strong supporter of providing aid to
people in need. But I also want them to escape poverty. And
assistance programs that do not lead people into employment,
but instead finance nonwork, will have one sure outcome: They
will keep people poor.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Doar, Morgridge Fellow in Poverty Studies,
American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ The views expressed in this testimony are those of the author
alone and do not necessarily represent those of the American Enterprise
Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does SNAP Support Work? Yes and No
Chairman King, Ranking Member Fudge, and other Members of the
Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and Nutrition of the
House Committee on Agriculture. I greatly appreciate being invited to
discuss the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and its
role, along with other government assistance programs, in both
alleviating poverty and supporting work for low-income Americans.
My name is Robert Doar and I am the Morgridge Fellow in Poverty
Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Prior to joining
AEI, I spent eighteen years working in government social services
programs for the State and City of New York. From 2004 to 2006, I was
Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability
Assistance where I was responsible for the oversight of SNAP as well as
other public assistance programs in New York State. For the 7 years
directly before I joined AEI, I was the Commissioner of the New York
City Human Resources Administration and had the day to day operational
responsibility of determining eligibility for SNAP. My extensive
experience with the management of SNAP has given me considerable
insight into how the program is actually working for American
families--insight which I would like to now share.
My testimony will address the following issues:
I. The importance of SNAP. SNAP provides needed resources to low
income Americans. SNAP benefits alleviate material hardship,
reduce poverty and support employment.
II. The rapid growth of SNAP. The program's growth during the past
14 years has been both dramatic and unprecedented and can be
attributed to both a weak economy and significant programmatic
changes.
III. The low responsiveness of SNAP to recent economic
improvements. Today, 5 years after the official end of the
recession, the number of SNAP recipients has not fallen at the
rate that would normally be expected in a post-recession
period. In fact, SNAP's responsiveness to reduced unemployment
seems to have decreased significantly since 1980.
IV. Work and SNAP. While many SNAP recipients are working and using
SNAP benefits as an important work support, a remarkably high
number of nonelderly, nondisabled SNAP recipients are not
reporting earnings from work and are not facing any effective
work requirement associated with SNAP.
V. The role of SNAP in the context of other public assistance
programs. SNAP does not operate alone in providing assistance
to low income Americans. For those SNAP recipients who are also
receiving TANF funded cash assistance, SNAP works in
conjunction with a program which has a strong emphasis on work
requirements in return for assistance. For those who are
disabled or elderly, SNAP provides needed additional assistance
to very vulnerable individuals and families. But for the very
many SNAP individuals and households who are not on TANF and
who are not disabled or elderly, SNAP can, when combined with
other forms of government provided assistance, encourage a
household to place less emphasis on the importance of full-time
employment than it should.
VI. Asset tests and the LIHEAP loophole. The widespread ending of
an asset test for SNAP is a mistake. Those decisions should be
revisited, with the goal of preventing people with significant
assets from receiving SNAP benefits. In addition, while
Congress attempted to close the LIHEAP loophole, the extent to
which states have been able to continue to falsely characterize
public housing residents as being in need of LIHEAP assistance
shows that, for some, programs such as SNAP are not about
encouraging work--and thereby reducing poverty--but about
drawing down as much Federal aid as possible.
SNAP Growth Through the Recession
SNAP has experienced unprecedented growth in the 2000s. Today the
program serves 46.2 million people--double the number of participants
from just 10 years ago.\1\ This tremendous program expansion can be
attributed to four main factors: the negative economic consequences of
the 2008-09 recession and a disappointingly weak recovery; changes in
program rules which have significantly eased program entry; large
growth in the number of recipients who are working; and promotional
efforts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and others, which
have encouraged use of the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and
Costs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service.
Accessed 14 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/
SNAPsummary.pdf, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/29SNAP
currPP.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Recession
Lingering effects of the recent recession have only been
exacerbated by the anemic recovery of the labor force. The unemployment
rate remains higher than in pre-recession years and as of 2012, 11.8
percent of all families in the United States were living in
poverty.\2\-\3\ Even those who are working are still
struggling to make ends meet as wages have not increased and part time
work has grown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population,
1943 to date, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Accessed 3 July 2014, http://
www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.pdf.
\3\ Families in Poverty by Type of Family: 2011 and 2012, U.S.
Census Bureau. Accessed 3 July 2014, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/
poverty/data/incpovhlth/2012/table4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of this increased need for supplemental aid for
families and individuals, programs like SNAP have grown dramatically
(see Figures 1 & 2). From 2000 to 2013 the number of SNAP participants
increased from fewer than 17.2 million to more than 47.6 million
individuals.\4\ In that same time period, total benefits paid to
participants increased fivefold.\5\ SNAP has supported families in and
near poverty through difficult economic times by alleviating their
material hardship and reducing their financial need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program Participation and
Costs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service.
Accessed 3 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/
SNAPsummary.pdf.
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: SNAP Participants & the Poverty Rate, 2000-2012
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, USDA.
Figure 2: SNAP Participants & the Unemployment Rate, 2000-2012
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDA.
II. Program Changes
At the same time, SNAP rules and requirements have been modified to
enhance program access. Altering asset and work requirements as well as
recertification timelines has contributed significantly to the increase
in program participation. With support from USDA, states have also
reduced the requirement for face to face eligibility interviews and
promoted the use of telephone interviews and online applications. All
of these changes make the eligibility rules of SNAP much different than
those for TANF.
The participation rate of eligible people in the U.S. increased
from 55.7 percent in 2000 to 79 percent in 2011.\6\-\7\ Many
states had even higher participation rates: Michigan and the District
of Columbia both showed 99 percent participation, and Maine, Oregon,
and Washington all achieved 100 percent program participation among all
eligible individuals.\8\ Another similar and more recent measure of
participation, the Program Access Index (PAI), the proportion of people
below 125 percent of the poverty line who receive SNAP benefits, shows
a continuing increase in access from 69 percent in 2010 to 74 percent
in 2012.\9\-\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A User's Guide to Measures of Food Stamp Program Participation
Rates, Table 1, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition
Service. Accessed 3 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/
files/ParticipationUsersGuide.pdf.
\7\ Reaching Those in Need: State supplemental nutrition assistance
program participation rates in 2011, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 3 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Reaching2011.pdf.
\8\ Ibid.
\9\ Calculating the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) Program Access Index: A Step-by-Step Guide for 2010, United
States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Office of
Policy Support. Accessed 15 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/PAI2010.pdf.
\10\ Calculating the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) Program Access Index: A Step-by-Step Guide for 2012, United
States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Office of
Policy Support. Accessed 15 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/PAI2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Growth of the Working Population
Partly as a result of changes intended to make the program easier
to navigate for low wage workers, the number of working SNAP recipients
has increased by 4.6 million since 2000.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ USDA Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Households, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition
Service. Accessed 18 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/
files/2000Characteristics.pdf, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/
files/2012Characteristics.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This could be seen as a positive development that shows that the
program has evolved to be a source of supplemental income for working
families. In New York City for example, we encouraged the use of the
program for low wage workers in order to help them make their earnings
go farther. During my time as welfare commissioner of New York City,
the number of SNAP recipients living in households which did not
receive benefits from TANF or SSI grew by 500,000. This remarkable
growth was used to demonstrate the extent to which the program had
become a significant work support.
IV. Promotion by the USDA
In an effort to increase accessibility to the program and remove
any existing social stigmas associated with program participation, the
USDA has revitalized the program's image. Changes have included
changing the program name and promoting it as a positive resource
rather than an indicator of need. The USDA and others have also
expanded outreach efforts. This encouragement of the use of SNAP has
contributed to increased participation.
All of these forces have culminated in a massive increase in aid
being distributed through SNAP. From 2000 to 2013, the amount of total
benefits distributed to program participants jumped from less than $15
billion to over $76 billion.\12\ Over that same time period the average
benefits paid out to each person nearly doubled from $72.62 to
$133.07.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program Participation and
Costs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service.
Accessed 3 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/
SNAPsummary.pdf.
\13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all, SNAP has been an extremely responsive tool to combat the
economic downturn and has provided substantial assistance to low income
Americans. SNAP enables low wages to go farther and has played an
integral role in the fight to reduce poverty. Studies such as one by
Tiehan, Jolliffe & Smeeding for the Institute for Research on Poverty
have shown that SNAP decreases poverty by as much as 16 percent, and
cuts extreme poverty in half, making it an extremely effective
antipoverty program.\14\ In 2011 alone SNAP helped 3.7 million people
out of poverty, 3.4 million out of deep poverty, and lowered the
poverty rate by eight percentage points.\15\ The positive effect of
SNAP can also be seen in studies of poverty using consumption measures
where the extent and severity of poverty is shown to be significantly
lower than measures which focus on income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Tiehen, Laura; Jolliffe, Dean; Smeeding, Timothy. The Effect
of SNAP on Poverty, Institute for Research on Poverty, Working Paper
No. 1415-13. 28 October 2013.
\15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the enormous growth of SNAP as a response to the recession,
two important questions emerge: First, why, now that the economy has
begun to strengthen, is the number of recipients not dropping faster?
Second, have efforts to increase SNAP's reach and impact allowed for
too much non-work among able recipients?
Slow Decline in Participation Post-Recession
Today, 5 years after the end of the recession, the number of SNAP
participants and the amount of benefits paid are just beginning to
decline. From April 2013 to April 2014 there was a 2.7% decrease in
participants and an 8.4% drop in total benefits paid.\16\ Given the
substantial increase in the number of recipients of SNAP, these
decreases are remarkably modest: the number of participants increased
by as much as seven million a year immediately following the recession,
while the past year has shown a decrease of only 1.3
million.\17\-\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, U.S. Department of
Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap.
\17\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and
Costs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service.
Accessed 14 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/
SNAPsummary.pdf.
\18\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, U.S. Department of
Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, looking at the years following this most recent recession
in comparison to the years following previous downturns, it is apparent
that SNAP is responding differently than it has in the past (see Figure
3). In the 4 years following the recession of the early 1980s, during
which unemployment levels rivaled those of the most recent recession,
the number of food stamp participants decreased by over two million and
food stamps participants as a percentage of the population dropped by
over 1.5 percent from the beginning of the recession.\19\ Similarly, in
the 4 years following the recession of the early 1990's, the number of
participants remained fairly constant after adjusting for population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ AEI calculations using USDA, BLS, NBER, and Census Bureau
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The past 5 years have not followed this pattern of economic
recovery. In the 4 years following the end of the downturn in 2009, the
number of SNAP recipients increased by 7.3 million.\20\ Moreover, the
percentage of the population receiving food stamps increased from 13
percent to 15 percent. To give perspective on this number, we can
compare the recent recovery with the recovery after the recession of
the 1980's, whose duration and unemployment levels are most comparable.
Adjusting for population, in the 4 years following the 1981-82
recession, there was a 12.5 percent decline in food stamp recipients.
In the 4 years following the 2007-09 recession, SNAP recipients
increased by 15.6 percent. Were this recent recovery to have behaved
similarly to that of the 1980's, by 2013 only 11.5 percent of the
population would have been receiving SNAP benefits: 36 million
individuals as opposed to 47.6 million.\21\ That is not a small
difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ AEI calculations using USDA, BLS, NBER, and Census Bureau
data.
\21\ AEI calculations using USDA, BLS, NBER, and Census Bureau
data. To obtain the 35 million individuals in 2013 the percent change
in population on SNAP from 1983-86 was applied to the portion of the
population on SNAP in 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3: SNAP Trends Through Recessions, 1969-2013
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sources: USDA, BLS, NBER, Census Bureau.
Work Requirements Among Able Adults
While the SNAP working population has grown, there are many
individuals receiving SNAP benefits who are not working or at least not
reporting earnings to SNAP eligibility offices. Under recent program
changes, the process of applying has become less rigorous, and while
this has expanded the program to meet the needs of many Americans, it
has also opened the door for many non-workers and off-the-book workers,
to receive SNAP benefits without facing any effort to help them get
into regular employment.
From 2008 to 2012 the number of nonelderly, nondisabled SNAP
recipients who were not reporting earnings ballooned from five million
(18 percent of SNAP recipients) to over 10.6 million (23
percent).\22\-\23\ As of 2012, almost half of these
individuals were not even participating in the labor force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ USDA Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Households: Fiscal Year 2008, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2008Characteristics.pdf.
\23\ USDA Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 4: Nonelderly Adult Participants by Work Status, 2008-2012 \24\
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
AEI Calculations using USDA data for years 2008-2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The number of nondisabled, nonelderly and nonworking was
derived from the ``Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Households'' for Fiscal Years 2008 to 2012. A summation of
nonelderly adults not in the labor force and not looking for work,
minus those exempt for disability, and nonelderly unemployed adults
looking for work yields the total number of presumably able-bodied
nonelderly persons who are not working. This number is an estimate, as
it does not account for the possibility that some of these recipients
may be working off-the-books, be otherwise incapable of work, or have
other motivations for non-work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 5: Employment Status Among Nonelderly Adult SNAP Participants,
2012
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: USDA Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012.
Figure 6: SNAP Participant Work Figure 7: SNAP Participants Work
Trends, 1998 Trends, 2002
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 8: SNAP Participant Work Figure 9: SNAP Participants Work
Trends, 2008 Trends, 2012
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This number, which includes some recipients who are also on TANF,
and others who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits, has
doubled through the recession and this growth far exceeds that of
working SNAP participants. While there may be some explanation for some
of this non-work status (individuals in the process of applying for
disability status for instance, or going through a short spell of
unemployment), the growth in this number is troubling. SNAP benefits
are not intended to satisfy a household's needs beyond supplementing an
existing income to provide for food. Helping these individuals gain
employment would greatly strengthen the economic situation of their
households.
Another group over which we need to be concerned is Able-Bodied
Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs). In 2012, only 1.5 million out of
5.5 million households not containing children, elderly or disabled
individuals reported earned income.\25\ Additionally, out of
approximately 4.4 million childless households containing at least one
nondisabled adult, only 1.2 million reported earned income.\26\ Only a
little more than a quarter of these able and childless adults is
working.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ USDA Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012, Table A.16. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf.
\26\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To achieve the goal of labor market integration for all of these
able bodied adult recipients, we must examine what we can do to
facilitate, motivate, and require work. My experience at both the state
and local levels has led me to believe that the best way to move
individuals receiving public assistance into employment is to send a
strong message that work is both expected and required for those who
are able.
One of the most significant effects following the implementation
the welfare reform legislation was the large number of AFDC recipients
who declined to pursue cash assistance when they were asked to
participate in regular activities associated with receiving assistance.
The clear conclusion which I and many others reached was that these
former AFDC recipients were already working in some capacity but not in
on-the-books employment. Further study on this issue is needed but it
is clear to me that at least some of the apparent non-work of SNAP
recipients can be attributed to recipients who are engaged in the off-
the-books economy and are also able to apply for and receive SNAP
benefits.
SNAP Does Not Operate Alone
SNAP is not the only program that acts as a support for working
families. The Earned Income Tax Credit, public health insurance, child
care assistance, child support collections and other programs all can--
when working correctly--help to make work more attractive than welfare
for low wage workers living in households with children. As the charts
below show, by using just three Federal programs, EITC, SNAP and
Medicaid, a single mother or father can ``gross up'' an $8 an hour job.
A single parent working for $8 an hour but working only half-time can
also make her wages go significantly farther by applying for and
receiving aid.
Estimated Value of Wages and Select Federal Benefits for a Low-Income
Earner With Two Children Working Full Time at $8/hr = $30,204
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Estimated Value of Wages and Select Federal Benefits for a Single Mom
With One Child Working Half-Time at $8/hr = $19,251
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
However, while these ``supports for working people'' clearly reward
work, they may also replace work, especially when multiple supports are
combined with each other. At the very least, this combination of
assistance can reduce the incentive for someone to increase their
hours, or take regular on-the-book employment. My experience in New
York--where many, many residents asked for and received SNAP and
Medicaid, but declined TANF (and its accompanying work requirements and
employment assistance), and yet still reported to our offices very low
earnings, led me to believe that the issue of well-intentioned ``work
supports'' potentially reducing on-the-book employment needs to be
studied.
Asset Testing and the LIHEAP Loophole
The use of broad-based categorical eligibility to allow SNAP
programs to waive the asset test has been a mistake. That is not to say
that we should return to the old and insufficient asset test. A limit
of $10,000 in assets (not including primary residence and a car) seems
to me to be appropriate. I say this for two reasons: first, by refusing
to allow SNAP offices to investigate assets, applicants who have assets
are able to avoid declaring them. This encourages people who do not
want to lie on a government form to take advantage of the program and
apply for assistance they do not really need. Second, a central
principle of government assistance for the poor should be that
applicants and recipients should be encouraged to first use their own
resources and efforts to help themselves and their families before they
turn to government. Ending the asset test has encouraged abuse, and
discouraged personal responsibility.
Residents of public housing often do not have utility expenses
billed directly to them. Those costs are supported by the rent they pay
and the subsidy they receive to keep their rent low. These same
residents may also be in need of SNAP assistance, which they should be
able to receive. However, to artificially increase the amount of their
SNAP benefit by suggesting that they have burdensome utility expenses
when, in reality, they do not, is a gimmick that is unfair to both the
SNAP program and the thousands of LIHEAP recipients who do have utility
expenses which are only partially offset by LIHEAP assistance. By
continuing to exploit the LIHEAP loophole, states are showing that they
are more interested in drawing down maximum federal dollars than they
are in running programs that promote work and provide properly tailored
assistance to people in need.
Conclusion
Our nation's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provides
important assistance to needy Americans. SNAP alleviates material
hardship, reduces poverty, helps the elderly and disabled, and provides
needed food to children in low income families. By supplementing low
wages, SNAP can encourage and sustain work while discouraging the use
of cash welfare.
Despite these positive aspects of SNAP, my experience with the
program during the past 10 years, especially during the period
following the 2008-09 recession, leads me to believe that some efforts
to promote the use of SNAP may have reduced the work support aspect of
the program. By itself, SNAP benefits may not be enough to reduce the
incentive for a recipient to go to work, or to move from part-time to
full-time regular employment, but when combined with unreported
earnings or other assistance programs--perhaps most notably
unemployment insurance benefits--the program does appear to allow a
significant number of adult recipients to remain out of work longer
than they might otherwise. Without some effort to require these SNAP
recipients to participate in employment programs such as those offered
under TANF, I fear that the number of non-working, nonelderly,
nondisabled SNAP recipients will remain high. This will contribute to
slower economic growth--but more important, it will keep these families
poor.
The Chairman. Thank you Mr. Doar.
I now recognize Ms. Dean for her 5 minute testimony.
Ms. Dean.
STATEMENT OF STACY DEAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR FOOD
ASSISTANCE POLICY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY
PRIORITIES, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Dean. Chairman King, Ranking Member Fudge, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today. I am Stacy Dean, the Vice
President for Food Assistance Policy at the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan policy institute.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you about
SNAP today and SNAP's relationship to other programs. SNAP is
designed to provide a basic nutrition benefit to low-income
families, seniors, and people with disabilities who cannot
afford an adequate diet.
Today, the program helps feed more than 46 million people,
including 21 million children and nine million children living
with family income below \1/2\ the poverty line. While the
program is not perfect, as Mr. Doar points out, it does an
admirable job of meeting its core purpose of providing food
assistance to needy households.
Moreover, recent research indicates SNAP's benefits aren't
limited to providing relief from just poverty and hunger. SNAP
also improves the long-term outcomes and self-sufficiency for
individuals who received its benefits as children. For example,
one of the most striking findings is that participation in SNAP
as a young child improved high school completion rates by 18
percent. So although Ranking Member Fudge stole some of my
thunder, I would like to highlight some of the program's key
strengths.
SNAP is highly responsive to need. It is an entitlement,
meaning that anyone who qualifies can receive its benefits.
This is the program's most powerful feature. It enables SNAP to
respond quickly and effectively during times of economic
distress. Enrollment does expand when the economy weakens and
it contracts when the economy recovers.
After growing substantially in response to the great
recession and the subsequent slow recovery, SNAP costs have
started falling and are expected to fall further. In April
2014, which represents the most recent data that we have, 1.5
million fewer people were on the program than when
participation peaked in 2012. And CBO projects that by 2019
SNAP will return to its pre-recession spending levels as a
share of the economy.
Second, SNAP growth was not a result of waste or fraud.
SNAP has an impressive track record with respect to program
integrity. The share of SNAP payments issued to ineligible
households in 2013 was less than one percent. And moreover,
SNAP's efforts to measure and cut errors really set the
standard across government programs.
SNAP is a powerful antipoverty program. While benefits are
modest, just $1.40 per person, per meal, they do have a big
impact. SNAP lifted about nearly five million Americans above
the poverty line in 2012, including 2.2 million children.
And SNAP is an important work support. The number of low-
income working households on SNAP has risen dramatically. While
only about 28 percent of families with an able-bodied adult had
earnings in 1990, 55 percent of those families were working in
2012. Most SNAP recipients who can work do, turning to SNAP
temporarily when they lose employment. So when you look at
before and after their participation in SNAP, more than 80
percent of households with at least one working-age nondisabled
adult work in the year prior to or after receiving SNAP.
So let me quickly pivot to SNAP's relationship to other
programs. Of course people cannot survive on SNAP benefits
alone. Many people whose circumstances qualify them for SNAP
also meet other programs eligibility criteria. Working families
with children who participate in SNAP may also, for example,
receive child care subsidies, and the majority of SNAP
recipients qualify for health coverage either under Medicaid or
Medicare. And as such, State Administrators, like Mr. Doar and
Secretary Squier, work to coordinate SNAP's delivery and
program rules with other programs when appropriate.
There are many cross-program coordination issues, so let me
just highlight one for you. Other programs can and do rely upon
SNAP's rigorous assessment of household financial
circumstances. This can result in more efficient application
and enrollment systems, as well as be the means to connect
people to benefits that can help them beyond SNAP.
Moreover, because SNAP's assessment is so robust, its
information can actually increase the quality and program
integrity in other programs. For example, Medicaid can rely
upon verified information in the SNAP program, rather than
reassessing and reworking the same information.
The School Meals Program adopts SNAP's determination of
eligibility for children to qualify them for the Free School
Meals Programs, rather than asking schools to replicate that
effort.
So to be sure, few state officials want to replicate SNAP's
very high and prescriptive standards for eligibility and
administration. Many however, are willing to use SNAP's
determinations to create efficiencies for other programs.
Of course, we should all work to find ways to improve SNAP,
and I think today's discussion will be an important
contribution to that effort. But I really encourage the
Committee to reject proposals that would weaken the program's
ability to provide food assistance or to experiment with ideas
that risk compromising the program's proven success.
So thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dean follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stacy Dean, Vice President for Food Assistance
Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, D.C.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Stacy Dean,
Vice President for Food Assistance Policy at the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan policy
institute located here in Washington. The Center conducts research and
analysis on a range of Federal and state policy issues affecting low-
and moderate-income families. The Center's food assistance work focuses
on improving the effectiveness of the major Federal nutrition programs,
including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). I also
lead our work on program integration and efforts to facilitate and
streamline low-income people's enrollment into the package of benefits
for which they are eligible. This includes directing technical
assistance to state officials through the Work Support Strategies
Initiative run by the Urban Institute and the Center for Law and Social
Policy. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities receives no
government funding.
My testimony today focuses on SNAP's relationship to other Federal
programs.\1\ SNAP is highly responsive to other Federal assistance
programs in the way that it assesses eligibility and benefit levels.
This ensures that its benefits are targeted to those who struggle the
most to afford a nutritious diet. And, other programs are keenly aware
of SNAP's ability to scrutinize the financial circumstances of low-
income households. As a result, numerous programs rely upon SNAP's
determinations of eligibility and assessment of individual
circumstances when setting their own eligibility rules and procedures.
Moreover, SNAP is a significant program with a broad reach and high and
proscribed standards for how benefits must be processed. As a result,
SNAP is a highly influential program as states seek to coordinate the
delivery of health and human services across many programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ My testimony draws upon the work of my colleagues at the Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, particularly Dorothy Rosenbaum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony will focus on four areas:
SNAP is a very effective program that alleviates poverty and
hunger as well as improves its participants' long-term
outcomes.
States and USDA operate SNAP very efficiently and with a
high degree of accuracy in addition to the program's rigorous
eligibility assessment of participants.
SNAP's benefit calculation is very sensitive to households'
receipt of other assistance programs, ensuring that benefits
are targeted to those that struggle the most to afford an
adequate diet.
Other programs benefit from SNAP's robust and high-quality
eligibility determination process. SNAP participation and the
verified data used in a SNAP eligibility determination can be
and is used by other programs to streamline their own
eligibility and enrollment processes.
SNAP Plays a Critical Role in Our Country
Before turning to today's hearing topic of the role SNAP plays in
other Federal assistance programs, I think it is important to review
some of SNAP's most critical features. As of April of this year, SNAP
was helping more than 46 million low-income Americans to afford a
nutritionally adequate diet by providing them with benefits via a debit
card that can be used only to purchase food. On average, SNAP
recipients receive about $1.40 per person per meal in food benefits.
One in seven Americans is participating in SNAP--a figure that speaks
both to the extensive need across our country and to SNAP's important
role in addressing it.
Policymakers created SNAP to help low-income families and
individuals purchase an adequate diet. It does an admirable job of
providing poor households with basic nutritional support and has
largely eliminated severe hunger and malnutrition in the United States.
When the program was first established, hunger and malnutrition
were much more serious problems in this country than they are today. A
team of Field Foundation-sponsored doctors who examined hunger and
malnutrition among poor children in the South, Appalachia, and other
very poor areas in 1967 (before the Food Stamp Program was widespread
in these areas) and again in the late 1970s (after the program had been
instituted nationwide) found marked reductions over this 10 year period
in serious nutrition-related problems among children. The doctors
attributed a significant part of this reduction to the Food Stamp
Program (as the program was then named). Findings such as this led
then-Senator Robert Dole to describe the Food Stamp Program as the most
important advance in the nation's social programs since the creation of
Social Security.
Consistent with its original purpose, SNAP continues to provide a
basic nutrition benefit to low-income families, elderly, and people
with disabilities who cannot afford an adequate diet. In some ways,
particularly in its administration, today's program is stronger than at
any previous point. By taking advantage of modern technology and
business practices, SNAP has become substantially more efficient,
accurate, and effective. While many low-income Americans continue to
struggle, this would be a very different country without SNAP.
SNAP Protects Families From Hardship and Hunger
SNAP benefits are an entitlement, which means that anyone who
qualifies under the program's rules can receive benefits. This is the
program's most powerful feature; it enables SNAP to respond quickly and
effectively to support low-income families and communities during times
of economic downturn and increased need. Enrollment expands when the
economy weakens and contracts when the economy recovers.
Figure 1
SNAP Caseloads Closely Track Changes in Number of Poor and Near-Poor
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
* Poverty numbers are annual estimates and not yet available
after 2012. Spikes in SNAP participants are from disaster
benefits (i.e., after hurricanes).
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture (SNAP Program
Participants); U.S. Census Bureau (annual estimates of
individuals below 130% of poverty).
As a result, SNAP can respond immediately to help families and to
bridge temporary periods of unemployment or a family crisis. If a
parent loses her job, SNAP can help her feed her children until she is
able to improve her circumstances. A U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) study of SNAP participation over the mid-2000s found that more
than half of all new entrants to SNAP participated for less than 1 year
and then left the program when their immediate need passed.
SNAP's ability to serve as an automatic responder is also important
when natural disasters strike. States can provide emergency SNAP within
a matter of days to help disaster victims purchase food. After the 2005
hurricanes, for example, SNAP provided more than two million households
with almost $1 billion in temporary food assistance. In 2013, SNAP
helped households affected by Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy, tornadoes in
Oklahoma, and flooding in Colorado, and in 2014 it has helped
households in the Southeast affected by severe storms.
SNAP's caseloads grew in recent years primarily because more
households qualified for SNAP because of the recession, and because
more eligible households applied for help. The Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) has confirmed that ``the primary reason for the increase
in the number of participants was the deep reces-
sion . . . and subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant
legislative expansions of eligibility.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Congressional Budget Office, ``The Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program,'' April 2012, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/
files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this increase in participation and spending was substantial,
SNAP participation and spending have begun to decline as the economic
recovery has begun to reach low-income SNAP participants. In 2013, SNAP
growth began to stabilize, and by April 2014, the number of SNAP
participants had fallen by 1.5 million since the peak of SNAP
participation in December 2012. SNAP spending is also falling. In
November 2013, a temporary benefit boost that was part of the 2009
Recovery Act ended, and as a result, SNAP spending on benefits will
fall by about $5 billion in Fiscal Year 2014. Over the first 9 months
of Fiscal Year 2014 (October 2013 through June 2014), SNAP outlays were
seven percent lower than the same period of Fiscal Year 2013 on a
nominal basis. CBO predicts that this trend will continue, and that
SNAP spending as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will fall to
its 1995 levels by 2019.
SNAP Lessens the Extent and Severity of Poverty and Unemployment
Figure 2
Two-Fifths of SNAP Households Are Below Half the Poverty Line
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: USDA Household Characteristics Data, FY 2011.
SNAP targets benefits on those most in need and least able to
afford an adequate diet. Its benefit formula considers a household's
income level as well as its essential expenses, such as rent, medicine,
and child care. Although a family's total income is the most important
factor affecting its ability to purchase food, it is not the only
factor. For example, a family spending \2/3\ of its income on rent and
utilities will have less money to buy food than a family that has the
same income but lives in public or subsidized housing.
While the targeting of benefits adds some complexity to the
program, it helps ensure that SNAP provides the most assistance to the
poorest families with the greatest needs.
These features make SNAP a powerful tool in fighting poverty. A
CBPP analysis using the government's Supplemental Poverty Measure,
which counts SNAP as income, found that SNAP kept 4.9 million people
out of poverty in 2012, including 2.2 million children. SNAP lifted 1.4
million children above 50 percent of the poverty line in 2012, more
than any other benefit program.
SNAP is also effective in reducing extreme poverty. A recent study
by the National Poverty Center estimated the number of U.S. households
living on less than $2 per person per day, a classification of poverty
that the World Bank uses for developing nations. The study found that
counting SNAP benefits as income cut the number of extremely poor
households in 2011 by nearly \1/2\ (from 1.6 million to 857,000) and
cut the number of extremely poor children by more than half (from 3.6
million to 1.2 million).
SNAP is able to achieve these results because it is so targeted at
very low-income households. Over 91 percent of SNAP benefits go to
households with incomes below the poverty line, and 55 percent goes to
households with incomes below \1/2\ of the poverty line (about $9,895
for a family of three in 2014).
During the deep and prolonged recession and weak recovery, SNAP has
become increasingly valuable for the long-term unemployed as it is one
of the few resources available for jobless workers who have exhausted
their unemployment benefits. In 2010, according to the Joint Economic
Committee, over 20 percent of those who had been unemployed for more
than 6 months received SNAP benefits. Nearly 25 percent of households
in which someone's unemployment benefits ended were enrolled in SNAP.
Figure 3
SNAP Cuts Extreme Poverty Almost in Half
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Shaefer and Edin, ``Rising Extreme Poverty in the
United States and the Response of Federal Means-Tested Transfer
Programs,'' National Poverty Center, University of Michigan,
May 2013.
SNAP also protects the economy as a whole by helping to maintain
overall demand for food during slow economic periods. In fact, SNAP
benefits are one of the fastest, most effective forms of economic
stimulus because they get money into the economy quickly. Moody's
Analytics estimates that in a weak economy, every $1 increase in SNAP
benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity. Similarly, CBO has
found that SNAP has one of the largest ``bangs-for-the-buck'' (i.e.,
increase in economic activity and employment per budgetary dollar
spent) among a broad range of policies for stimulating economic growth
and creating jobs in a weak economy.
SNAP Improves Long-term Health and Self-sufficiency
Figure 4
Children With Access to Food Stamps Fare Better Years Later
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Hoynes, Schanzenbach, and Almond, ``Long Run Impacts
of Childhood Access to the Safety Net,'' National Bureau of
Economic Research, November 2012.
While reducing hunger and food insecurity and lifting millions out
of poverty in the short run, SNAP also brings important long-run
benefits. Programs that help poor families with children afford the
basics may help improve longer-term outcomes for children by reducing
the added stress that parents or children may experience if they cannot
pay their bills or do not know there will be food on the table. While
researchers are only starting to explore the relationship between
safety net programs and toxic stress and its long-term consequences,
the early findings are striking.
A recent National Bureau of Economic Research study examined what
happened when government introduced food stamps in the 1960s and early
1970s and concluded that children who had access to food stamps in
early childhood and whose mothers had access during their pregnancy had
better health outcomes as adults years later, compared with children
born at the same time in counties that had not yet implemented the
program. Along with lower rates of ``metabolic syndrome'' (obesity,
high blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes), adults who had
access to food stamps as young children reported better health, and
women who had access to food stamps as young children reported improved
economic self-sufficiency (as measured by employment, income, poverty
status, high school graduation, and program participation).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Hilary W. Hoynes, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Douglas
Almond, ``Long Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net,''
National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 18535, 2012,
www.nber.org/papers/w18535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting and Encouraging Work
Figure 5
Work Rates Have Risen, Especially Among Households With Children and
Adults Who Could Be Expected to Work
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: CBPP tabulations of USDA Household Characteristics
data
In addition to acting as a safety net for people who are elderly,
disabled, or temporarily unemployed, SNAP is designed to supplement the
wages of low-income workers.
The number of SNAP households that have earnings while
participating in SNAP has more than tripled--from about two million in
2000 to about 6.9 million in 2012. The share of SNAP families that are
working has also been rising--while only about 28 percent of families
with an able-bodied adult had earnings in 1990, 55 percent of those
families were working in 2012. The increase was especially pronounced
during the recent deep recession, suggesting that many people have
turned to SNAP because of under-employment--for example, when one wage
earner in a two-parent family lost a job, when a worker's hours were
cut, or when a worker turned to a lower-paying job after being laid
off.
Figure 6
SNAP Households With Working-Age Non-Disabled Adults Have High Work
Rates
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: CBPP calculations based on 2004 SIPP Panel data.
SNAP benefits help low-wage working families make ends meet. For a
family of three with one wage earner who works at $10 an hour, SNAP
increases the family's take-home income by roughly ten percent to 20
percent, depending on the number of hours worked.
In addition, the SNAP benefit formula contains an important work
incentive. For every additional dollar a SNAP recipient earns, her
benefits decline by only 24 to 36 --much less than in most other
programs. Families that receive SNAP thus have a strong incentive to
work longer hours or to search for better-paying employment. States
further support work through the SNAP Employment and Training program,
which funds training and work activities for unemployed adults who
receive SNAP.
Most SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with
at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while
receiving SNAP--and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or
the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families
with children. (Almost 70 percent of SNAP recipients are not expected
to work, primarily because they are children, elderly, or disabled.)
SNAP Supports Healthy Eating
While I've focused so far primarily on SNAP's role in reducing
poverty, responding to downturns, and supporting work, we should not
forget that SNAP enables low-income households to afford a healthier
diet. Because SNAP benefits can be spent only on food, they raise
families' food purchases more than an equivalent amount of cash
assistance would. Fruits and vegetables, grain products, meats, and
dairy products comprise almost 90 percent of the food that SNAP
households buy. In addition, all states operate SNAP nutrition
education programs to help participants make healthy food choices.
Strong Program Integrity
SNAP has one of the most rigorous payment error measurement systems
of any public benefit program. Each year states take a representative
sample of SNAP cases (totaling about 50,000 cases nationally) and
thoroughly review the accuracy of their eligibility and benefit
decisions. Federal officials re-review a subsample of the cases to
ensure accuracy in the error rates. States are subject to fiscal
penalties if their error rates are persistently higher than the
national average.
Figure 7
SNAP Error Rates Are at an All-Time Low
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Quality Control Branch, U.S. Food and Nutrition
Service.
The percentage of SNAP benefit dollars issued to ineligible
households or to eligible households in excessive amounts fell for the
seventh consecutive year in 2013 to 2.61 percent, newly released USDA
data show. That's the lowest national overpayment rate since USDA began
the current system of measuring error rates in 1981. The underpayment
error rate fell to 0.6 percent, also the lowest on record. The combined
payment error rate--that is, the sum of the overpayment and
underpayment error rates--fell to an all-time low of 3.2 percent.\4\
Less than one percent of SNAP benefits go to households that are
ineligible. In other words, more than 99 percent of SNAP benefits are
issued to eligible households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the Fiscal Year 2013 error rates: http://www.fns.usda.gov/
snap/quality-control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If one subtracts underpayments (which reduce Federal costs) from
overpayments, the net loss to the government last year from errors was
about two percent of benefits.
In comparison, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates a tax
noncompliance rate of 16.9 percent in 2006 (the most recently studied
year). This represents a $450 billion loss to the Federal Government in
1 year. Underreporting of business income alone cost the Federal
Government $122 billion in 2006, and small businesses report less than
\1/2\ of their income.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For both SNAP and taxes the figures represent gross estimates
(i.e., before SNAP households repay overpayments, taxpayers make
voluntary late payments, or consideration of IRS enforcement
activities.) The net costs are somewhat lower. See: Internal Revenue
Service, ``Tax Gap for Tax Year 2006, Overview,'' January 6, 2012,
http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/overview_tax_gap_2006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overwhelming majority of SNAP errors that do occur result from
mistakes by recipients, eligibility workers, data entry clerks, or
computer programmers, not dishonesty or fraud by recipients. In
addition, states have reported that almost 60 percent of the dollar
value of overpayments and almost 90 percent of the dollar value of
underpayments were their fault, rather than recipients' fault. Much of
the rest of overpayments resulted from innocent errors by households
facing a program with complex rules.
Figure 8
92 Percent of Federal SNAP Spending Is for Benefits
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2013
Finally, SNAP has low administrative overhead. About 92 percent of
Federal SNAP spending goes to providing benefits to households for
purchasing food. Of the remaining eight percent, about five percent was
used for state administrative costs, including eligibility
determinations, employment and training and nutrition education for
SNAP households, and anti-fraud activities. About three percent went
for other food assistance programs, such as the block grant for food
assistance in Puerto Rico and American Samoa, commodity purchases for
the Emergency Food Assistance Program (which helps food pantries and
soup kitchens across the country), and commodities for the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
SNAP's Relationship With Other Programs
Now that I have reviewed some of SNAP's most critical features,
I'll discuss how SNAP is influenced by and influences other programs.
I'll focus on two aspects of how SNAP relates to other Federal
assistance programs:
One, SNAP's benefit structure is highly responsive to other
forms of assistance that households may receive; and
Two, SNAP is a part of a larger health and human services
system, and state administrators work to coordinate its
delivery and program rules with other programs where
appropriate. Other programs can rely upon SNAP's rigorous and
high-quality assessment of a household's financial
circumstances. These efforts can result in far more efficient
application and enrollment systems as well as be the means to
connect struggling families and seniors seamless to the
benefits that can help them. Moreover, because SNAP's
assessment of eligibility is robust, using its eligibility
determination or verified information can increase program
integrity and accountability in other programs.
SNAP's Benefit Design Is Highly Responsive to Other Federal Assistance
Programs
Of course, people cannot survive solely on SNAP benefits alone.
Many individuals and families whose circumstances qualify them for SNAP
also meet the eligibility criteria for other programs. SNAP's low-
income senior population typically has income from Social Security or
Supplemental Social Security (SSI) benefits. Unemployed individuals may
combine SNAP with unemployment insurance benefits to cover their
monthly expenses. Working families with children who participate in
SNAP may also receive subsidies to cover their child care costs from
the limited funding of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
(CCDF). Because SNAP is the program of last resort, it calculates food
assistance benefit levels to households after capturing their available
income to purchase food (while no other program may count SNAP as
income). This approach enables it to wrap around the benefits of other
safety net programs and to help fill in many of the gaps. SNAP targets
its benefits to the households that have the fewest resources available
to afford an adequate diet. Several features set SNAP apart among
programs:
Its national benefit structure is responsive to other programs.
Unlike many other benefit programs, which are restricted to particular
categories of low-income individuals (such as senior citizens, people
with disabilities, families with children, veterans, or people who
recently became unemployed), SNAP is broadly available to almost all
households with low incomes. SNAP eligibility rules and benefit levels
are, for the most part, set at the Federal level and uniform across the
nation. These SNAP features ensure that poor families have adequate
nutritional resources regardless of where they live. The amount of a
family's SNAP benefits depend on its income, and as a result, SNAP
benefits tend to be higher in states with below-average wages and cash
assistance benefits. The program narrows disparities between low-income
families and communities in poorer states and those in more affluent
states. This aspect of SNAP is especially important to southern states
and rural areas, where wages (as well as cash assistance benefits) tend
to be lower. For example, cash assistance benefits for families with
children that have no other income are about four times higher in
states that make the highest cash assistance payments than in the
lowest-payment states. When SNAP benefits are added in, this disparity
narrows to less than 2-to-1.
It reflects other programs' income to households. SNAP counts cash
income from all sources, including earnings from a job as well as
unearned income, such as cash assistance, Social Security, unemployment
insurance, and child support. Thus, households that qualify for and
receive benefits from other Federal or state programs receive lower
SNAP benefits than households that have no other cash income available
to purchase food. This helps to ensure, for example, that a family with
a single parent who loses her job and cannot find a new job before her
unemployment insurance ends still has resources available to purchase
an adequate diet for her children.
It allows deductions to help ease inequities. SNAP also targets
benefits by allowing deductions from income for the cost of certain
essential household expenses (such as rent and child care) before
determining benefits. For example, although earning a low income makes
many workers eligible for child care and housing assistance, only a
small number are able to participate in these programs because of
capped Federal funding.
Consider two families that live next door to each other: if one
receives a housing voucher or a subsidy to help afford child care costs
but the other does not, the latter family may have to spend more than
\1/2\ of its income on its shelter or child care expenses. As a result,
that family will have considerably less money available to buy food.
SNAP helps to partially address this inequity by allowing the household
without the subsidy to deduct a portion of the housing or child care
expense from its income and receive a higher SNAP benefit. While this
targeting of benefits adds some complexity to the program, it is
critical in focusing assistance more effectively on those in greatest
need.
To be sure, there are some exceptions to this framework to
eliminate inequities that can arise from counting all sources of
income, such as a grant to a third party meant to cover job training
tuition. And, in other cases, Congress has explicitly excluded certain
sources of income, such as special combat pay for military personnel,
for public policy reasons. Nevertheless, the Agriculture Committees
have endeavored for over 40 years to establish a SNAP benefit structure
and calculation that is highly sensitive to family circumstances,
including other forms of assistance.
Efforts to Coordinate SNAP With Other Programs
Part of our work at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is
to work with states on improving the delivery of SNAP. We respond to
states' questions and requests for technical assistance on SNAP rules,
best practices for business operations and ways to improve access to
SNAP by eligible people. Because SNAP has a significant presence within
the health and human services delivery system, states' questions and
concerns are not limited to SNAP policy and operations. They also want
information and ideas about how to improve their overall operations and
service delivery, including other programs such as Medicaid, child
care, cash assistance through the Temporary for Needy Families (TANF)
block grant and other programs. My colleagues and I have spent a great
deal of time studying how SNAP interacts with other programs at the
state and local level and the ways that states seek to coordinate SNAP
with the array of services that they offer.
Many states have made progress over the last 10 years in
coordination or seamless service delivery across programs (as opposed
to within a single program). Although, some states had coordinated
policies on the books, too often the on-the-ground procedures needed to
operationalize these policies did not exist. In addition, few if any
states had an effective, data-based system for determining whether
families were connected to the full range of programs for which they
qualify.
Lack of cross-program coordination undermines states' efforts to
operate efficient systems. It also reduces overall support for
families. Because they must navigate a complex and inefficient web of
systems, families often are unable to secure the full package of
benefits for which they are eligible. This undermines the safety net's
ability to support struggling families and seniors. For example,
children are much likelier have better outcomes when they have access
to health coverage and SNAP's nutrition benefits for a comprehensive
set of health supports.
Consider a family with low earnings that is eligible for children's
health coverage, SNAP, and child care. Despite the fact that these
programs often serve the same families and require very similar
enrollment information, under the worst case scenario a struggling
family would have had to apply and renew benefits via three separate
processes that are not very synchronized. Further, busy state workers
in these three programs would spend time duplicating each other's'
efforts. More typical, although still highly problematic, was a model
where households would apply for several benefits through a single
application process and then be required to keep separate workers
representing the different programs appraised of their circumstances.
Often, the household would also have to renew their eligibility through
separate and redundant processes.
While these approaches to service delivery still exist, they are no
longer the norm. States have worked very hard to break down the silos
and redundant administrative systems among programs. They have been
motivated by several reasons:
As a result of the recent downturn, millions more families
have lost income or are now out of work altogether. And many of
these families have turned to their state governments for help
through programs like unemployment insurance, SNAP, and health
coverage. In addition, more people are eligible for health
coverage through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance
Program (CHIP) because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But
states haven't had more resources to deal with the increased
demand. To the contrary, human services offices' budgets and
staff were cut as millions more people have walked through the
doors. Despite these incredibly trying circumstances, states
have managed to serve these new families in need, and several
states have actually improved their service delivery through
the downturn.
Technology offers new opportunities. In a paper-bound
system, it was often hard or administratively burdensome to
share information across programs. Now many states have new
options to work quickly. For example, today most states use
document imaging systems as a means to save and file household
verifications. They also offer call centers where clients can
call and easily report a change in their situation and need for
benefits. This technology can make it easier for participants
and for state caseworkers to update multiple programs for new
information about household circumstances.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For more information on how states are leveraging new
technology with respect to health and human services programs,
including SNAP, see ``GAINING GROUND: A Guide to Facilitating
Technology Innovation in Human Services,'' by Freedman Consulting,
http://tfreedmanconsulting.com/documents/GainingGround_FINAL.pdf.
Finding effective ways to leverage state resources to
achieve more is in the states' interest. When state agencies
spend less staff time on processing eligibility, they can
redeploy those resources to more important tasks like
connecting families to work and supporting families who need
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
more intensive supports.
Making it easier for eligible low-income families and
seniors to access all of the benefits for which they are
eligible helps states' struggling citizens. Making sure that
eligible individuals can access the help that they need will
help to ensure their financial stability. Many states believe
that families can better spend their time looking for work (and
staying in work) as well as address other family needs when
they are not constantly at the local human services office
standing in line and filling out redundant forms. As the body
of evidence regarding the long term benefits of key health and
human services programs emerge, it becomes even more compelling
to connect eligible families and individuals to a package of
these supports.
SNAP's Role in Cross-Program Coordination Efforts
SNAP has played a major role in these efforts. Federal, state, and
local policymakers who operate other programs appreciate many of SNAP's
features that I described earlier. They understand SNAP's significant
role in the broader health and human services world. Some of the key
contexts that state and local leaders consider as they assess SNAP's
role in their broader systems:
Individuals eligible for SNAP have relatively low income. As
a result, they are often eligible for other Federal and state
benefits. For example, in virtually all cases, children who
participate in SNAP will also be financially eligible for
health coverage under Medicaid. And, for programs where states
set the income eligibility rules such as child care subsidies
and the low-income heating and energy assistance program
(LIHEAP), SNAP participants typically have incomes well below
the eligibility limits established by states. To be sure, SNAP
participants will not necessarily qualify for these benefits.
Some programs such as WIC or child care have additional non-
financial eligibility criteria. In other cases, the programs do
not receive sufficient funding to provide services or benefits
to all those who qualify. Nevertheless, given that a large
number of very low-income people participate in SNAP, it is a
logical program to consider for basic coordination purposes.
States co-administer SNAP with other major health and human
services programs. According to USDA's most recent State
Options Report from 2012, more than 40 states co-administer
SNAP and Medicaid.\7\ Even more states co-administer SNAP and
cash assistance under TANF. In addition, many of the agencies
that administer SNAP also administer other human services
programs such as child care, LIHEAP, job training programs as
well as state and local services targeted at low-income people.
This means that SNAP co-exists with other programs in state
computer systems, within state policy manuals, in staff
trainings, and on forms and notices. Finding efficient ways to
coordinate the administration of these programs makes solid
operational sense from a state and local perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See program integration table on page 23 http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/10-State_Options.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States seek new approaches to be more efficient and effective in
their business operations and administrative costs. As the
state human services agencies build computer systems, train
staff, and build business operations to screen and enroll
eligible low-income people into the array of programs that they
offer, they look to solicit information from applicants once to
assess their eligibility for the programs and services that the
agency provides.
SNAP rigorously assesses eligibility. As noted above, SNAP
does a very thorough review of a household's eligibility. SNAP
state agencies are required to verify household circumstances
through paper documentation and third-party data matches.
Overall, the assessment required under Federal law for SNAP far
exceeds the requirements laid out in any other program. SNAP
demands that states have relatively sophisticated means to
process eligibility and verify a household's circumstances. The
quality and caliber of SNAP eligibility assessments is well
understood within the health and human services arena. Not only
can other programs rely upon the quality of SNAP's eligibility
findings, in many cases, using information that has been
verified by SNAP will increase the integrity of the program
importing the information.
Despite its strengths, SNAP isn't a perfect partner. SNAP is a
complex program with exacting Federal standards. Because SNAP is a
program of last resort and its benefits are fully financed by the
Federal Government, the program rules target benefits to the neediest
households with a very detailed current picture of their situation.
Federal rules require quite a bit from households and states to ensure
that the determination of eligibility is accurate and fair. As a
result, SNAP's complicated rules exceed what other programs require or
desire. States do not typically wish to import all of SNAP's rules into
other programs. Instead, they find that they can import individual
findings from SNAP, such as an income calculation, to other programs.
Examples of Cross-Program Coordination
Figure 9
Many Children Likely Eligible for SNAP and Medicaid/CHIP Fail To
Receive One Or Both Supports (2011)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Note: Program participation among citizen children with
family income below the poverty level and no reported health
insurance. The data should be viewed with caution. See footnote
11.
Source: CBPP analysis of a Survey of Income and Program
Participation.
One of our current efforts to support states' efforts to improve
program integration is through the Work Support Strategies (WSS)
Initiative. The WSS Initiative is a foundation-supported effort led by
the Center for Law and Social Policy and the Urban Institute. The
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities leads the technical assistance
effort to states. The project is motivated by the value public benefit
programs can provide to working families and the belief that the states
and localities administering these programs can improve how eligible
families access and retain these benefits. Under the project, core work
support programs are defined as SNAP, health coverage, and child
care.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For more information about WSS, see: http://www.urban.org/
worksupport/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many eligible people, particularly in working families, do not
participate in the core work supports for which they are eligible. In
some instances, this is simply due to limited funding for the service.
For example, although earning a low income makes many workers eligible
for child care and housing assistance, only a small share are able to
participate in these programs because of capped Federal funding. The
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimates that
Federal funding for child care subsidies served fewer than 20 percent
of potentially eligible families in 2009.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Estimates of Child Care Eligibility and Receipt for Fiscal
Year 2009,'' U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, August 2012,
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/12/childcareeligibility/ib.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, families often miss out on programs that do, in fact, have
sufficient funding to enroll all eligible people. For example, USDA
estimates that SNAP served only 68 percent of people in eligible
working families in 2011. The Urban Institute found that four million
children who had no health insurance in 2011 were eligible for Medicaid
or CHIP.\10\ Data from national surveys confirm that children who are
likely eligible for SNAP and Medicaid are not always enrolled in both.
Virtually all U.S. citizen children in families whose annual income is
at or below poverty and who do not report having health coverage should
be eligible for both Medicaid/CHIP and SNAP. Figure 9 \11\ shows that
nearly 40 percent of children likely to be eligible for both SNAP and
health coverage are not receiving both programs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Medicaid/CHIP Participation Rates Among Children: An
Update,'' Urban Institute, September 2013, http://www.urban.org/
uploadedpdf/412901-%20Medicaid-CHIP-Participation-Rates-Among-Children-
An-Update.pdf.
\11\ The data for this analysis are from the Census Bureau's Survey
of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) for calendar year 2011. We
limited the analysis to U.S. citizen children with incomes below the
Federal poverty level because these individuals are very likely to be
eligible for both Medicaid and SNAP. The data should be interpreted
with caution, as the SIPP significantly undercounts participation in
Medicaid and SNAP. In 2009 the number of children reported in the SIPP
as receiving SNAP is only about 75 percent of the number of children
thought to have actually received SNAP based on SNAP administrative
data. USDA finds that SNAP reaches about 85 percent of eligible
children, rather than the 67 percent identified in this SIPP analysis.
Similarly, the SIPP does not include about \1/3\ to 40 percent of the
children who receive health coverage through Medicaid or CHIP.
\12\ A recent Urban Institute study based on a different national
survey (the American Community Survey) found that in 2008 about 15
percent of children without health insurance coverage but eligible for
Medicaid or CHIP were in households that received SNAP. This difference
demonstrates that while there appear to be significant numbers of
families that do not receive all the benefits for which they qualify,
national survey data have significant limitations which may make it
difficult to obtain accurate figures. See Genevieve M. Kenney, Victoria
Lynch, Allison Cook, and Samantha Phong, ``Who And Where Are The
Children Yet To Enroll In Medicaid And The Children's Health Insurance
Program?'' Health Affairs, October 2010, vol. 29 no. 10, 1920-1929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our WSS grantee states (Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, North Carolina,
Rhode Island, and South Carolina) have taken on the challenge of
creating and implementing a plan to streamline, integrate, and improve
the provision of work support benefits through their SNAP, Medicaid,
and child care programs. Each state committed to the goal of increasing
enrollment by eligible people in these core work support programs.
While most states hope their efforts will also reduce the burden on
caseworkers and administrative costs in these systems, all are
motivated to improve the lives of the families they serve. These states
are undertaking this work at an exciting time. The ACA changed the way
that states must assess Medicaid eligibility, requiring states to
rework their old eligibility rules. In addition, the ACA sets new
standards for customer service and the means of doing eligibility
determinations, which has required many states to upgrade their
technology and offer new services such as online applications and phone
service. As states implement these important changes and upgrades in
Medicaid, they are actively looking for ways to leverage improvements
in their overall systems.
Illinois Health and Human Services Secretary Michele Saddler
outlined the state's transformation of several key programs--like SNAP
(food stamps), Medicaid, and child care--to help low-income families
keep and maintain jobs in a hearing before the Ways and Means Committee
last summer. Illinois is simplifying and aligning policies across
programs and investing in new technology to make it easier for families
to apply and easier for the state to verify their information. As
Saddler explained:
``When I began, our benefit delivery system was broken.
Families had to apply multiple times to get the assistance
their family desperately needed. They had to take hours or even
days off of work to sit in a local office to get help,
potentially losing the very work we encourage. Our focus has
been on finding and creating efficiencies in this system,
seeking a better environment for customers and staff. A more
efficient and accessible system leads to greater stability for
families and ultimately saves the government future costs of
benefits and administration.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Secretary Michelle Saddler's testimony before the House
Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, July 31,
2013, see: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
michelle_saddler_testimony_hr073113.pdf.
Through both our everyday work with states and the WSS Initiative,
we have observed many ways other programs can use SNAP to streamline
their own administrative processes as well as improve the client
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
experience.
States and other program operators have implemented the
federally mandated connections between SNAP and other programs.
Congress has made the determination that, in some cases,
enrollment in SNAP is sufficient evidence of financial
eligibility for another program. For example, all children who
participate in SNAP are deemed automatically eligible for the
free school meals program. Pregnant and post-partum women and
young children receiving SNAP are income eligible for the
Special Supplemental Nutrition program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) although they must still meet the program's
criteria for nutrition risk to qualify. In these cases,
Congress deemed that school meals and WIC must rely upon the
SNAP income determination because it is so reliable. Moreover,
households who apply for SNAP are self-identifying themselves
as needing food assistance. Connecting these children and
pregnant women to other programs that could help meet their
nutrition needs is a sensible approach.
The new Work Opportunity Investment Act will allow individuals
who participate in SNAP (among other programs) to be
automatically determined to meet the income requirements for
services. Other Federal programs, such as Federal Financial
Student Aid programs, allow applicants to skip certain portions
of their needs assessments if the applicant or his or her
family participate in SNAP. Program participation is considered
a sufficient indication of financial need under the programs'
eligibility rules.
States and local governments use SNAP enrollment and
information where they have the flexibility to set the rules.
States can set the income eligibility guidelines for certain
programs such as child care assistance through the Child Care
Development Block Grant (CCDF) and energy assistance through
LIHEAP. If states establish income eligibility rules equal to
or above the SNAP income eligibility limits, they can then use
a household's enrollment in SNAP as sufficient evidence that
the family meets the program's income eligibility limits.
Idaho, for example, recently raised its CCDF income eligibility
to 130 percent of the Federal poverty line, and indexed it to
rise with inflation--thus, aligning the cutoff with SNAP and
ensuring that the alignment would stay in force over time.\14\
Programs like child care subsidies and LIHEAP are often run by
local community action agencies that do not have the resources
to invest in sophisticated computer eligibility systems with
built-in third-party data checks. By using SNAP's income
determination, states ensure a high-quality, accurate
assessment of need. Other entities that target their resources
to low-income individuals or households also use SNAP
enrollment as evidence of need. For example, school districts
may elect to waive school fees for individuals who participate
in SNAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Confronting the Child Care Eligibility Maze: Simplifying and
Aligning with Other Work Supports'', by Gina Adams and Hannah Matthews,
December 2013, p. 31, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412971-
confronting-the-child-care.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's worth noting again that importing a SNAP income eligibility
determination does not necessarily qualify an individual for
other programs' benefits. Often there will be other eligibility
criteria and most human services programs do not have funding
to meet demand.
States coordinate eligibility and enrollment processes with SNAP
to eliminate redundant requests. Where states cannot or do not
wish to align other programs' income eligibility rules with
SNAP (e.g., states often set much higher income eligibility
guidelines for child care subsidies because they wish to
provide child care subsidies to low- and moderate-income
households), they may seek to coordinate or to align the
processes by which they determine that applicants are eligible.
Approximately \1/3\ of states package SNAP online applications
with at least four other programs. This means that people
seeking more than one form of assistance only need to fill out
a single application. Similarly, workers need to process only
one application and the supporting verification.
Income verification is another area where the eligibility rules
might differ but states could align the process. For example,
one program might ask for the four most recent weeks of income
while another asks for the last 30 days of income and a third
asks for monthly income. Instead, a state might choose to set a
different income eligibility limit for SNAP and another program
but use the same income verification standards against which
they measure eligibility. Because SNAP is often the most
significant program in terms of size and paperwork and
verification demands as well as quality control reviews, states
often align other programs to its standards. New Hampshire and
Oklahoma are two states that have standardized the types of
verification they seek from families applying for both SNAP and
child care.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Ibid, p. 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States can also use verified data in the SNAP record to support
eligibility determination and redeterminations in other
programs such as Medicaid or child care. This approach, often
called an ex-parte review, allows families' benefits in other
programs to be proactively renewed using current information
from another program such as SNAP. The agency looks at other
systems before seeking any information from the client at
renewal. If a child care worker, for example, checked if a
family was enrolled in SNAP, they could use SNAP data to renew
income eligibility for child care benefits and would need to
gather only the additional relevant information on work status
or other unique child care eligibility elements.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Ibid, p. 40.
To be sure, perfect alignment is rarely achieved and often is not
desirable. First, SNAP's rules do differ from other programs'. The SNAP
household definition is based on which group of individuals living
together purchase and prepare food together. This understandably
differs from which group of individuals could be expected to contribute
to the health care costs of others. Moreover, SNAP's eligibility
standards are rigorous. Households are required to provide extensive
documentation of their circumstances, participate in an eligibility
interview, report significant change in their circumstances as they
arise, and have their eligibility reassessed on a regular basis. Other
programs do not have the necessary administrative funding to pursue
such an approach, nor would it be appropriate for them to do so given
their structure and design.
As states work to better coordinate their systems, they are
discovering that there is often far more flexibility in Federal
programs to align and coordinate, or cross-leverage, information than
they thought. Often disconnects are the result of their own making or a
lack of understanding of the flexibility given to them by the Federal
Government. Other times, differences between programs are by design and
originate from the programs' different goals, as described above in the
household definition example. And, there are times when states discover
differences between programs that raise reasonably questions. For
example, several states have asked if they can use employer records to
verify household income via states' unemployment records for households
with stable circumstances. Medicaid allows and encourages states to use
third party data matches to verify income even if the information is a
little dated. SNAP historically has required current information even
from households with very stable employment arrangements. In such a
case, the Federal Government will permit waivers from Federal SNAP
requirements to test whether allowing SNAP to use other programs' rules
is appropriate and cost effective. And USDA and HHS are soliciting
additional ideas from states where sensible alignment opportunities
exist.
Looking Ahead: SNAP's Relationship to Other Assistance Programs
I appreciate the Subcommittee's effort to delve into the
relationship between SNAP and other Federal assistance programs. SNAP
plays a major role in the broader arena of health and human services
programs. It is both responsive to and has a significant impact on many
programs outside of the Committee's jurisdiction. I hope that my
testimony has given you some sense of how your work influences other
programs through SNAP. The state agencies and SNAP caseworkers that
operate and implement SNAP must think about the program in the context
of the health and human services systems they are running. It's helpful
to consider SNAP's environment and program operators' perspectives as
we strive to improve the program and further its positive impact on
struggling individuals and families.
There can be a tension between remaining true to SNAP's goals of
addressing food insecurity and hunger and harmonizing and coordinating
SNAP policies with other Federal assistance programs. If SNAP aligned
perfectly with other programs, it would no longer be SNAP. Many of its
unique features are by design and contribute to its success. As you
consider options to improve coordination, it is important that those
proposals not undermine SNAP's strengths as a food assistance program
targeted to individuals and families with the least ability to purchase
food. Proposals to sweep away some of SNAP's key features or that would
shift benefits away from food assistance to other purposes run afoul of
the program's goals and proven success.
Section 4016 of the 2014 Farm Bill is an example of a positive
policy change to help harmonize SNAP with other programs. That
provision requires that USDA work with other Federal agencies to create
data exchange standards consistent with other Federal assistance
programs. This will facilitate the ability of programs (and Federal and
state governments) to share data across programs. Such standardization
is expected to help improve program integrity and to improve our
ability to assess program performance.
USDA can do more to assist states' efforts to administer SNAP as
part of the larger health and human services system. First and
foremost, USDA's oversight and policy development would be strengthened
if its staff developed more expertise in other Federal assistance
programs. When SNAP policy is inconsistent with other major programs
such as Medicaid, it would be helpful for USDA to be aware of those
differences and to flag them for states. (The same holds true for HHS.)
State and local governments, even individual caseworkers, ought not to
be left on their own to disentangle differing Federal rules and
regulations. It seems reasonable for the Federal agencies to navigate
what we ask their state counterparts to manage. That having been said,
USDA has taken steps to engage SNAP agencies in a conversation about
how the recent changes in Medicaid could be affecting SNAP operations
at the local level. They can do more here, and I encourage them to do
so.
As states undertake innovative and effective cross-program
coordination efforts, we ought to seek to share those best practices
across states. The Work Support Strategies Initiative offers such an
opportunity and we plan to do more dissemination about the project in
the coming year.
I also believe that the Federal Government could do more to assess
how well Federal and state agencies are doing with respect to
connecting eligible low-income people to the package of key supports
for poor children, working families, and seniors and people with
disabilities. Low-income people will likely fare better if they can
count on the help of SNAP, health coverage, and other work supports--
programs that we know work and that improve the long-term outcomes of
those who receive them. Policymakers need information about how well
states connect eligible individuals to these programs as a whole. We
can learn from states that do well and identify barriers in Federal
rules or local practice that may impede states from comprehensively
addressing their residents' needs.
Finally, I did not spend time in my testimony on the interaction
between SNAP and the major Federal entitlements for seniors and people
with disabilities--Social Security and Medicare. Current SNAP law
instructs the Social Security Administration (SSA) to inform Social
Security and SSI applicants and participants about SNAP benefits and
streamline the SNAP application process for them. USDA reimburses SSA
for these activities. As low-income senior citizens have the lowest
SNAP participation rates of any demographic group, but very high Social
Security and Medicare participation rates. I believe that more could be
done to assist poor eligible seniors to enroll in SNAP at SSA offices.
A future oversight hearing or more work by USDA to explore how this
process could be improved could go a long way to improving the food
security of low-income senior citizens and people with disabilities.
Conclusion
SNAP is an efficient and effective program. It alleviates hunger
and poverty and has positive impacts on the long-term outcomes of those
who receive its benefits.
SNAP is highly targeted, making it very sensitive to the other
benefits that families receive. SNAP either counts their income or
recognizes households that receive benefits from other programs by
generally providing less assistance to those families than families who
do not receive other forms of assistance.
And, SNAP has exacting standards with respect to eligibility and
administrative requirements. This makes it a good fit for states to
looking to use its findings for other programs. Such integration
increases efficiency by reducing administrative costs and can help
eligible families receive the help that they need with fewer
transaction costs.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Dean. Your timing is
immaculate.
Ms. Dean. I practiced.
The Chairman. The chair would like to remind the Members
that they will be recognized for questioning in the order of
seniority for Members who were present at the fall of the
gavel, and after that Members will be recognized in the order
that they arrived.
And recognizing myself for first questions, I would turn to
Ms. Squier. And I believe in your testimony the time didn't
allow you to get to a point of an exhibit that is in your
written testimony. That is a directive, dated September 30,
2009, from the USDA Food and Nutrition Services. Could you
explain that directive and the impact that it has had on, let's
say, the policy in New Mexico and perhaps other states that you
might be aware of?
Ms. Squier. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman and Members. I have
worked in many states, five states and the Federal Government.
And in Texas in 2009 we were told by the Federal Government
that we would now be acknowledged, not quite rewarded, but
acknowledged for adding people to the food stamp rolls. This is
what USDA FNS wanted us to do. And I did actually attend in New
Orleans an award ceremony for Texas for adding a number of
people to the rolls. I was slightly horrified about that.
We are doing the same thing in New Mexico and I believe
every other state. And I think that the push--and I will be
fair, the push has gone through more than one Administration--
the push to put people on food stamps has caused an incredible
rise. And to be acknowledged by the Federal Government to do so
has caused more people to join onto the Food Stamp Program.
The Chairman. And, Ms. Squier, the language that I see in
this memo says, ``We encourage you to continue promoting
expanded categorical eligibility as a way to increase SNAP
participation and reduce state workloads.''
Ms. Squier. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly true.
The Chairman. That has had a significant impact across the
country as far as your experience is concerned?
Ms. Squier. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And, Mr. Doar, you have dealt with large
claims in a large population state and have noticed actually a
significantly high degree of professionalism come out of that
arena. I think you are in the crucible a little harder than
many others. And so from that standpoint I would ask you, if
you had a limited budget to work with, with regard to SNAP
benefits, and you had to get that carved down to something that
was manageable, what would be your approach with regard to
categorical eligibility? Do you have any creative things like
fingerprints? Any other items you might want to discuss that
could----
Mr. Doar. Sure. The State of New York, after I left, made
the decision to accept categorical eligibility with regard to
the asset test. And I had felt as the City Administrator that
that was a mistake, because I felt that it allowed people who
had assets that could be available to help them in times of
need to avoid reporting those assets. And we had an experience
where we felt, by not investigating assets and by not being
able to inquire about assets, people were more likely, who did
have sufficient means and would not be eligible for the program
based on income, it was easier for them to get on the program.
So that would definitely be something that I would speak
about. In my testimony, I suggested it should be higher than
the asset test used to be, but it should not be unlimited
assets.
The Chairman. And with regard to other categorical
eligibility, with regard to TANF for example?
Mr. Doar. I think that in any program where you say to
someone, you are automatically eligible based on the fact that
you have read a brochure or that you have been given a
brochure, it seems to me that sends a kind of message that
isn't really the way we want our programs to be run. So I
wasn't comfortable with that categorizing. But the thing I was
most concerned about was the asset test.
We did have finger imaging as an effort to protect against
duplicate benefit issuances. Mayor Bloomberg felt very strongly
that it was an effective measure. It was an effective measure
in New York City. We still have it for welfare applicants for
TANF. But Governor Cuomo, under some pressure from the Federal
Government, decided that we could no longer do that. And it
wasn't so much that we caught people as much as we deterred
people from applying for benefits in multiple jurisdictions.
The Chairman. What if we went down a path that might be a
block grant on a per capita basis or perhaps a cost-share so
the states had some skin in the game?
Mr. Doar. Well, one of the characteristics is that given
the current benefit levels, a block grant of SNAP calculated
based on the current benefit amounts going out to states would
be quite high. So if the country is heading into a stronger
recovery where the need for these sorts of benefits was
reduced, the states would have dollars freed up and they should
be required to spend it on social services programs, but they
could spend more effectively than a stipend for food.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Doar. I thank the witnesses.
And now I turn to Ranking Member Fudge for her questioning.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But because I know the
time is fleeting and we do have another series of votes, I am
going to yield at this point to Mr. McGovern and I will ask my
questions at the end.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
Ranking Member.
I just want to make sure that we understand the context
here before I go into my comments or my questions. I mean, we
live in a country where there are 50 million people who are
hungry or food insecure. Close to 17 million of them are kids.
So we have a real issue here with people living in the United
States, the richest country in the history of the world, that
are vulnerable and need some support.
And, Ms. Squier, when you said that people who have
millions of dollars in the bank are eligible for SNAP, if that
is the case in New Mexico someone ought to be fired, because
that is not the case anyplace else. I don't know too many
millionaires who are dying to get on SNAP. I don't know why
they would. The average benefit is about $1.40 per meal, per
day. So it is not something that I think people aspire to.
In terms of categorical eligibility, we all ought to keep
in mind that this was a conservative idea proposed about by
John Kasich as a way to reduce some of the costs to states and
to make it easier, quite frankly, for people who are eligible
for a variety of programs to be able to get them. Being poor is
hard work, and sometimes it is a bureaucratic maze to be able
to find out what you are eligible for. So this was supposed to
streamline the process.
So before we throw categorical eligibility out the window,
let's understand what it is about. And I will yield to Ms. Dean
for a comment.
Ms. Dean. I just want to throw in a few of the facts about
categorical eligibility. I think there has just been a little
too much rhetoric.
This Committee considered repealing categorical eligibility
over the last year or 2, and the estimate that CBO gave you
showed that it would reduce baseline spending and remove people
from the program equal to about two percent. So there is no way
that categorical eligibility is the cause or the fuel for
caseload growth.
I think another important thing to point out is while
states under the option have the flexibility to adopt a less
restrictive gross income test, meaning relaxing the rule of
about $2,200 a month gross income for a family of three, to
slightly higher so that a working mom paying a huge amount of
her income in rent and child care may qualify. However, she
still has to go through a rigorous assessment of eligibility
and qualify after her disposable income is counted.
Mr. McGovern. I appreciate you for clarifying that.
And, Mr. Doar, I agree with you. This is not a perfect
program, and I think we need to look at ways to better help
people transition from poverty into independence.
I think the benefit is, in my opinion, not generous enough.
People who are on SNAP usually end up in food banks because it
is not this overly generous benefit.
The majority of people who are able to work actually do
work. I am going to give you an example. I spent a night at a
homeless shelter in Worcester, Massachusetts, about a month
ago, a family homeless shelter. The majority of adults in that
homeless shelter worked. They were making minimum wage, just
enough so their benefits began to get cut, they hit this cliff,
but not enough to put a downpayment on an apartment and afford
to pay rent in Worcester, Massachusetts. So maybe we ought to
be talking about making work pay a little bit better and maybe
increase the minimum wage.
From 2009 to 2014, the cost of milk increased by 17
percent, but the minimum wage hasn't changed. From 2009 to
2014, the cost of eggs increased 23 percent, but the minimum
wage hasn't changed. So, I mean, part of what we ought to be
talking about, as well as kind of streamlining the program, is
making sure that people are getting an adequate benefit to put
nutritious food on the table for their families.
And I am curious, there has been some criticism of some
large employers who pay their workers low wages knowing that
even full-time employees will qualify for SNAP. Does anyone
have an opinion on this? Is the Federal Government subsidizing
SNAP?
Mr. Doar. Well, I would just address a couple of questions
about this rigorous application process. The SNAP application
process has changed a lot in the last 10 years. And to the
extent that it is not quite the number of rules, the number of
recertification periods, the ability to do interviews, not face
to face, but over the phone or over the Internet, have made the
process much easier to be accurate.
So if you don't have a lot of rules that you have to follow
in order to be sure you are giving benefits to people who are
really eligible, then it is easier not to break any of those
rules. So I want to caution you, I was proud of our QC record
in New York City and New York State as well, but some of it
came because the job got easier, because the rules were
lessened and reduced.
Mr. McGovern. Yes, just one final thing. As a Member of
Congress who does a lot of casework, a lot of people who fall
on hard times end up coming to us because they can't quite
figure out the system. So maybe it has gotten easier, but I
will just tell you that it is not easy for a lot of poor
families when they find out that someone has lost a job and
they can't afford their rent or they can't afford to pay their
heating bill.
Mr. Doar. There is a balance, there needs to be a balance.
Mr. McGovern. It is a balance, and I think we ought to
strike that balance. I just worry about the fact that when we
talk about these issues, sometimes we end of demonizing these
people--and I am not saying you are, I am not saying you are,
at all--but sometimes we end up demonizing people who are poor,
who desperately do not want to be poor, and who are working.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's yielded time has expired.
You will be allowed, though, to answer the question, Mr. Doar.
Mr. Doar. We expanded benefits during the time that I
served both at the state and city, maybe greater than any other
constituency. I believed in helping people. But the purpose was
to help people who also could get into work. And often what we
found is that people were not reporting earnings when we
expected they would, and that is a problem that we have to
address.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's yielded time has expired.
I turn now to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I get into
my questions, I want to say thank to you a group back home in
the district that I represent in Thomasville and Valdosta; they
are also in Albany and Douglas. It is the Second Harvest Food
Bank, 13,000 square miles, 30 counties that they operate in
where they take the vegetables and the bread and the other
things from grocers who maybe aren't quite up to standard for
selling and make sure that they are able to help get that to
many of the people who need it the most in our district.
As we talk about this issue, there are a lot of people out
there who are trying to resolve this issue for Americans across
the country, and it is a serious issue. And, Mr. McGovern, I
certainly appreciate your passion for it. I know we differ on
some ideas of how to resolve it, but I do agree with you that
there are people out there that need the help, and there are a
lot of people that are out there working to help them. And I do
appreciate your passion on it.
The reason, as we talk about the two percent, if you will,
whether it is two percent or five percent, the challenge we
have right now to me is the integrity of the system. And when
you allow the integrity to start to slide through, whether it
is categorical eligibility or whether it is turning your head
and looking the other way, and I would suggest that even with
the states, some of the states, what they are doing is
essentially state-sanctioned gaming of the system, then any of
the programs lose support of the American citizen, and that is
where we have the problem.
And whether it is one percent fraud or two percent fraud or
ten percent fraud, we have a responsibility to address that
fraud, because if we don't, then in the end we will be able to
serve fewer people and the money doesn't go to the people who
actually need it the most.
So again, I want to say thank you to Second Harvest Food
Bank who I have the privilege of representing, who does a great
job of getting quality food at a tremendously reduced price to
the people who need it throughout three Congressional districts
in the State of Georgia, one of which is mine.
With that said, I want to move to the integrity of the
system, if you will. Ms. Squier, as we talk about the
difference in state and Federal requirements for the system, do
you believe that the states have a better chance of putting the
integrity in the system or do you think that the Federal
Government would do a better job of putting integrity into the
system?
Ms. Squier. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I believe the
states----
The Chairman. Your microphone.
Ms. Squier. We have shown with the TANF program what the
states can do, a hugely successful program. And while I know
you don't want to dwell on this fact, one of the things we can
do in the Food Stamp Program is what we did in the TANF
program, and that is have a work requirement for those who are
not already working. Because I do understand that you have poor
out there that are working and struggling every day.
But the able-bodied--I am not talking about disabled people
or older people--able-bodied people with an able mind have
risen that are now getting food stamps. And there is a reason
for that, and that is because we have made it so easy. And I
would like to see the states run programs that fit for them
specifically.
Mr. Scott. Would any of the other of you like to comment on
that briefly?
Ms. Dean. I think that what we have right now is a strong
partnership, Federal oversight for a national problem, which is
hunger in America. People are not different, they are hungry in
Kentucky versus Texas versus Washington. Having a national
nutrition standard is crucial, the rules and the rigor with
which you, Congress, establish for the program that states then
operate.
I think states by and large do a terrific job. Can we hold
them to a higher standard, push them to do better and more?
Absolutely, both with respect to integrity and serving all
eligible people. But it has been a very successful partnership
to date.
Mr. Doar. I think that we have been doing this for a long
time this way, and I think that there is room for
experimentation and testing of different approaches in which
states could experiment using the food stamp benefits or the
funding provided by food stamps to run a program that
encouraged work more and provided assistance equally as
effectively.
Mr. Scott. I certainly support the work requirement.
If I can, Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. I have
one other organization in Georgia, a group called Manna, that
has done a wonderful job in helping alleviate hunger and
malnutrition throughout the world, Fitzgerald, Georgia. They
take the good Georgia peanuts and they mix it with vitamins and
it is provided for children around the world. And they have
done an excellent job, and I want to say thank you to the
people there for what they have done.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back. And I remind the panel that we are expecting votes in
about 10 minutes, which means we might have 20 minutes at the
outside. And I appreciate your cooperation.
I recognize Ms. Lujan Grisham for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Ms. Squier. And I am really going to focus on
New Mexico, and I wish we were doing that in a way, because we
are proud of what is going on in New Mexico. And I will repeat
this again in my testimony and my question, but we are now the
most food insecure for children in the country and nearly the
most food insecure for adults in the country.
So as we talk about partnerships, the role for Federal
oversight, and given that I have been in a state cabinet, it is
a hard job, as Ms. Squier will attest to. But, in fact, our
Human Services Department had questioned and actually had a
judge require that they do things differently in terms of many
of their benefit programs, which is why you absolutely need a
partnership.
And I really appreciate that you are here because I do
think we need to have reform conversations, to think about
proactive ways to make these programs more stable for the
future. I know that you haven't been doing that in New Mexico
and you are not working and won't testify before the New Mexico
Legislature. So I am really honored that you are willing to
come before us today.
Now, you are part of a thing called the Secretary's
Innovation Group, and it recommends that SNAP be converted to a
fixed allocation with work requirements, 30 hours per week
being the family norm.
I think every New Mexican would love that every able-bodied
adult would have meaningful employment, but let's be mindful
about the conditions around the country and let's talk about
New Mexico. We are ranked 48th for job growth among the states.
Albuquerque, which is the heart of my district, is in a double-
dip recession, the only community in the country in that
situation, we lost 2,700 jobs over the last year.
As I said, we have the highest rate of food insecurity, 31
percent for children.
So bearing in mind that New Mexico has these challenges
that our residents face, I am trying to understand exactly what
you are proposing. When there aren't enough jobs to go around,
do we tell these kids and these families, ``I am sorry, you
will be hungry''? Because with a 31 percent rate, it looks to
me that is exactly what would be said with a mandatory work
program.
Ms. Squier, how do we reconcile that?
Ms. Squier. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative.
And I, too, would like to brag a little bit about New Mexico
because we are number one in the nation on the School Breakfast
Program. And we have also instituted School Breakfast After the
Bell. We do school lunches. And now we are introducing----
Ms. Lujan Grisham. But those don't require work programs.
Ms. Squier. And, no, they don't.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. So let's focus on the work requirements.
And, in fact, I would disagree with you about the efforts in
school nutrition, which have also been under severe and
consistent criticism.
So talk to me about how people are going to get jobs in
states like New Mexico. And, given your proposal, just how
would that work to take the 31 percent of kids who are hungry
and make them not hungry?
Ms. Squier. Well, Mr. Chairman, Representative, I would
disagree with you a little bit about the jobs that are out
there. What I am doing right now is running a program in a
little part of the state called Hobbs. And it was a pizza
delivery, Domino's, and they needed people to work, and they
couldn't get them.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Because Hobbs has a huge oil and gas
boom, Ms. Squier, with so many high-paying jobs, six-figure
incomes for people who are doing custodial work and driving
trucks. So let's just focus on----
Ms. Squier. They couldn't get them because the people
couldn't pass the drug test.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. I am going to go on to something else,
Ms. Squier. In New Mexico, you have managed to cut TANF
benefits and reduce the number of participants in the program
by 35 percent. Seems to me you have plenty of flexibility. You
have also slowed enrollment in what used to be a model SNAP
program to the point where 10,000 people are caught in a
backlog waiting to receive benefits.
When we add that backlog to the other programs, there are
at least 30,000 people that are waiting for months to receive
emergency assistance. This became so urgent that in May a
Federal judge ruled that the New Mexico Human Services
Department was failing in its obligation to provide timely
services and ordered the Department to remove systemic and
programmatic barriers and process applications immediately.
Again, it seems to me that you have found many ways to have
flexibility in the programs and make it difficult to enroll and
to reach as few people as possible. I think it is important
that this Committee be clear that when we talk about
flexibility and reform, and it sounds like it is a good thing,
but in reality it could mean kicking off the very people we are
trying to protect. We need to find reforms that really target
that population.
And I would like to ask, yes or no, that if Congress were
to adopt your recommendations, would we--would I expect to see
even bigger backlogs in the State of New Mexico?
Ms. Squier. There are no current backlogs, ma'am. And you
are right that there was a backlog, and that is because the
Affordable Care Act and the Federal Government sent incomplete
files to us. So we had extra work to do to the tune of about
30,000 of them a month.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. I completely disagree with you about
that. But in any event, I raise these issues to point out that
the partnership is important. New Mexico had a model SNAP
program. It does not today. And that making sure that we have a
balanced approach, Mr. Chairman, I think is an effective way
forward.
[The clarifying information submitted is located on p. 59.]
Ms. Lujan Grisham. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
And anticipating no regional disagreement between the Ohio
Members, I would turn to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to say that these programs are
important and everybody that needs help should get the help.
And I am pleased to say that in the recent farm bill we passed
we did increase the funding for food banks. I think, as Mr.
Scott talked about earlier, food banks play a really big role
and prevent a lot of food from going to waste to help the
needy.
But first, Mr. Doar, and the whole panel, cited statistics
how participation in SNAP has increased and even during the
economic cycles it doesn't go like this anymore, it just keeps
going like this, up. And of course that could be, I guess, we
are in a stagnant economy, part-time work and low-income jobs,
and that is another issue for another day, I guess. But I think
we do need to make sure we protect taxpayers' interests. And
there are nearly 50 million people on the SNAP program now. And
you mentioned, Mr. Doar, that some are working off the books.
Some refuse to work.
Do you have any idea what percentage of people on SNAP
might be totally not eligible?
Mr. Doar. Well, this is a hard number to get at, and we
need to continue to work on it, because it is not reported
exactly the way you would expect it to be. Because when someone
applies for SNAP, they answer questions concerning whatever
income is in their household. And one question is, do you have
earnings? And so we should know how many people who are not
disabled, not elderly, and not children are getting SNAP but
don't report any earnings.
And in my testimony, I have estimated what we think it is,
and it has grown. And so it is a large number. And I know that
in my experience in New York City that there were people--and I
don't have a number, it needs further study--who were receiving
Medicaid and SNAP and working in good fashion except in a way
that was off the books.
Mr. Gibbs. So you are saying it is a significant number?
Mr. Doar. It is an issue. There isn't any question.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. To follow that a little bit, what was the
average time--this is to the panel, not just to Mr. Doar--of
people being on SNAP in the past and maybe today? Has that
changed? Is it the average time? What is the average time?
Mr. Doar. I don't have that.
Ms. Dean. The latest study was from about 10 years ago. The
median length of stay at the time was 10 months; for workers,
it was shorter, about 8 months; and for seniors, for example,
with fixed incomes, longer, 12 to 24 months.
Mr. Doar. And I would just point out that 10 years ago is a
long time in the change of the SNAP program.
Ms. Dean. No, without a doubt. But that is the most recent
available data.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. On this categorical eligibility, does that
help people get off SNAP programs? I mean, does it work the
other way? We have heard so much discussion about if you
qualify for LIHEAP and these other programs, you qualify for
food stamps, my understanding. Now, if you fall off of one of
the other programs, would they come in and look and see if you
still qualify for food stamps? How does that mechanism work?
Mr. Doar. Do you want to address that?
Ms. Dean. Well, just to say, the reasons governors or State
Commissioners adopted the option, for example, was to help
stabilize working families. We have working families just above
the income cutoff in SNAP--which again, for a family of three
is a little over $2,100 a month, who might be paying quite a
bit of their income for rent and child care--and wanted to
offer them the help of food assistance because after we looked
at their budgets, their disposable income, they couldn't afford
a basic diet for their kids.
So with that added help, does it help keep them in their
job? That was the theory of change of these governors.
Just again to reiterate, they still had to come in and go
through a thorough assessment of eligibility. What categorical
eligibility allows is a relaxing of the gross income rule or
the asset test. It does not automatically qualify someone for
the benefit. They still have to be determined eligible.
Mr. Gibbs. Just another question to the panel. In the
Agricultural Act of 2014 that we passed, are there incentives
in there to help people to get off SNAP to go to work?
Mr. Doar. That question you are raising is an interesting
one in terms of the pressures and forces of the program from
either the Federal Government or the state. I don't, in 18
years of being in the program, I don't sense that there was
ever some sort of desire to help people get off. There
certainly was a great desire to help people get on who were
eligible. But SNAP is not a program that focuses on working so
that benefits are no longer needed, in my judgment.
Mr. Gibbs. It sure seems like, what you just said, that a
significant amount of people that are receiving SNAP benefits
can work--or refuse to work.
Mr. Doar. Well, I am not so sure about refuse to work. They
are not being asked. Remember, in the TANF program we have set
up these programs to help people get into employment. They do
exist. But we are not making them available or encouraging or
requiring SNAP recipients who are not reporting earnings to
take advantage of them.
That is what I want. And remember, it is not to go get a
job, it is come in and be engaged in an activity or receive a
service that can help get you a job. That is also part of the
requirement associated with work.
Ms. Dean. But I am worried this is leaving the impression
that there aren't participants on the program who are, in fact,
working. In fact, that may be one reason, I think you pointed
to it in the beginning of your question, as to why SNAP
caseloads remain elevated even though the unemployment rate is
falling. Setting aside the unemployment rate not being the
perfect measure of the economy, we probably have many
individuals who weren't working who have taken low-paying, low-
hour jobs. They remain eligible.
Mr. Gibbs. My time has expired. I yield back Mr. Chairman.
That is because we have this stagnate economy. It is just
growing at barely one percent or negative.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
And I now recognize Mrs. Negrete McLeod for her 5 minutes.
Mrs. Negrete McLeod. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I was living in another world and you were living
in a parallel world, because in California there were no jobs
to be found. I don't know about your states, but in California,
we had such a depression during the recession that I don't know
where TANF workers, where food stamp workers, people that are
recipients were able to get a job. Even people that had
degrees, that had Ph.D.s, couldn't get a job. So I don't know,
maybe I am living somewhere else.
Mr. Doar. Well, in New York City we had a pretty strong
economy. The recession hit us, and we came out of it earlier
and we came out faster. So we did have a lot of job
opportunities, there isn't any question. And that is why I am
concerned about it, is because I also have these people
receiving this benefit that I thought was a work support, but
they are not working and there was an economy that produced
jobs.
Mrs. Negrete McLeod. Well, I guess New York is a little
more lenient than California, because anybody that was
receiving any kind of aid of any kind had to have some way to
show that they were looking for a job, and if they had a job,
then their benefits for certain programs were then lessened, or
second, cut off completely.
So I guess what I have to ask you all, if any policy
changes that would reduce the SNAP eligibility, is it going to
reduce eligibility for any other program in your states?
Ms. Squier. Mr. Chairman, Representative, it would more
mirror the eligibility as opposed to reduce it. For instance, I
think what some of us are proposing, not all of us, is that we
do a TANF-like program and mirror the Food Stamp Program to
that program. I think it would be more of a mirroring and not a
reducing.
Ms. Dean. Although certainly people on SNAP qualify for
other things. For example, children enrolled in the SNAP
program are auto-enrolled into the Free School Meals Program,
which is very sensible. These are families who are very low
income and they have self-identified themselves as food
insecure. If we restricted eligibility for SNAP and those
families weren't on SNAP, they potentially would not qualify,
for example, for the Free School Meals Program.
Mrs. Negrete McLeod. I am sure you know that any child that
is hungry cannot learn.
Ms. Dean. Absolutely.
Mrs. Negrete McLeod. Okay. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana,
Mr. McAllister.
Mr. McAllister. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One thing I just want to make sure that we are all clear on
is, we talk a lot about the people and the jobs and all, and I
want to make it clear that the blame here is not to be put on
the people that are on the SNAP program. The blame is to be put
on those of us that sit in Congress, past, present, and future,
because we have created the system that has not the
accountability and has allowed the abuse and the different ways
that we are sitting here talking about today to make sure the
accountability is there for the people that are either on the
system today, will be on the system tomorrow, whether they have
a job and they are receiving SNAP or they are not receiving
SNAP.
So with that, there are a few questions I want to ask. And
this one goes to you, Ms. Dean. You correctly pointed out that
the temporary benefit boost was part of the 2009 Recovery Act.
And it ended in November that last year. Your testimony cites
the reductions of seven percent over the first 9 months of
Fiscal Year 2014, which was October 2013 through June 2014. Is
the reduction in benefits so due to the lapse of bonus benefits
in the Recovery Act?
Ms. Dean. That is quite a bit of it in terms of the
spending, actually, and then as a result, average benefits are
a little bit lower than we thought they would be. So, in fact,
there is a little bit more there. But we in fact have fewer
participants in the program. So it is both things that are
going on.
Mr. McAllister. So you would say there has been a reduction
in the number of beneficiaries?
Ms. Dean. Yes.
Mr. McAllister. Okay. So Mr. Doar testified that even
though the economy has begun to strengthen, the number of
recipients is not dropping at an expected rate.
Mr. Doar. It is not dropping at the rate it dropped in the
1980s. It has not dropped in the rate that it dropped in the
1990s. And there is always a lag. There is always a lag. But
this is a long lag. This is a longer lag than before.
And I should also point out that while it has dropped in
the past year, in the most recent month it went up. So there is
something different happening now than used to happen. Now,
there may be explanation for that, but it has been different.
Ms. Dean. But this downturn, it was so far in excess of
anything we had experienced in previous recessions. We lost
more jobs, individuals were unemployed for longer periods of
time, and we are adding far fewer jobs back to the economy,
many of which are at low pay and low hours. So, to me, I would
like to see the caseloads coming down because the economy is
rebounding, but it just hasn't done that yet.
Mr. McAllister. And I agree. I think everyone on this
panel, and everyone in Congress agrees that we would love to
see a society where no one was on the SNAP program. We would
love to see everyone above the poverty line. That is what we
all strive for.
I represent the ninth poorest district in the country, and
I see it every day. And what I see with the SNAP program is I
do see the abuse.
And what I would like to see is accountability happen to
where the program is to where we provide to where the farm bill
works for the farmers and the SNAP program works together; to
where the nutrition value is there, but it is only certain
items that provides nutrition; to where it has been
incentivized, being on the SNAP program, as to where there is
only a certain amount of items that you can go in the grocery
store and you can get.
It is not just anything that you can go in there and get.
It is not an EBT card that gives you anything. It is those
nutritional value items that you get. So that you are limited
to what you get, but it is the nutritional value that you need,
so kids are not hungry, they are getting what they need.
Mr. Doar. Congressman, Mayor Bloomberg proposed just a test
of limiting what you could purchase with SNAP by eliminating
something that was clearly not nutritious and a complete waste
with regard to health, sugary and sweetened beverages, and the
USDA rejected an experiment that would allow us to limit.
So you are asking for something that is just very hard to
change in the history of USDA. And it is unfortunate. But it is
something worth considering, especially considering the amount
of money that is spent on products that are not of nutritional
value.
Mr. McAllister. And that is where I come back to where I
say the accountability comes back on us, the body of Congress.
This is our fault. This is not the recipients' fault.
And you were talking about how do we get people off of it?
We have worked real hard on the marriage. This is one case
where we should have been working harder on the divorce. We
should have been trying to figure out how does it come a time
to where we get them off the program. And how do we work to get
them off the program? We work on better education. We work on
giving them the tools to get those better jobs.
And, yes, you are right, we have to have the jobs, we have
to create and put the jobs there for them to have. But when the
jobs are there--and just like you was talking about in Hobbs
and other places--we have to have the skill sets to be able to
get those better paying jobs when they are there, whether they
are the six-figure jobs or whatever.
But if we don't give them the skill sets, we have failed as
a society to get them prepared. And that comes back on us as a
body of Congress. And that is not a Democratic issue, that is
not a Republican issue, that is an American issue. And we are
failing this country when we don't give those tools, when we
are marrying them to the problem, we are developing a culture
year after year, decade after decade of making them be
dependent on us as a government.
So with that, I yield back any time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Louisiana yields back.
And the chair now recognizes Ranking Member Fudge for her 5
minutes and any closing statement she might choose to offer.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me get a few things clear that I was confused about.
Mr. Doar, my colleague Mr. Gibbs asked you about the number
of people that you thought were basically scamming the system,
and you said you didn't know. So if you don't know, you can't
say it is significant. You either don't know or do you know.
Mr. Doar. Well, I----
Ms. Fudge. Do you know? The question is, sir, do you know?
Mr. Doar. What I said in my testimony was that the extent
to which unreported income is in the households of SNAP
recipients, off-the-books earnings, is something we should
study.
Ms. Fudge. Do you know the number?
Mr. Doar. I do not know the number----
Ms. Fudge. That is the question, sir. That is my question.
Mr. Doar.--I am giving my experience.
Ms. Fudge. Second, you indicated that these people are
being paid off the books. So if you are aware of businesses who
are illegally paying people under the table, have you reported
that abuse?
Mr. Doar. No, I have not reported that abuse.
Ms. Fudge. Okay. That is the answer that I need, you have
not. Either you don't know or you have not reported, and in
either case, you should.
Mr. Doar. It is something that needs to be studied and
looked into because it is clear it is happening.
Ms. Fudge. So you don't know. Okay.
Let me just ask this question as well.
Ms. Squier, you indicated that if someone just gets a
brochure that they are eligible for TANF.
Ms. Dean, is that accurate?
Ms. Squier. Not TANF.
Ms. Dean. Under the TANF block grant, states can spend TANF
funds on a wide variety of needs. TANF, bottom line, is a
funding stream, not a program. So, yes, states can spend TANF
funds----
Ms. Fudge. How the state chooses, correct?
Ms. Dean. Yes.
Ms. Squier. But that would be food stamps that I was
indicating.
Ms. Fudge. Go right ahead.
Ms. Squier. If someone receives a brochure about TANF, that
can in New Mexico make them eligible.
Ms. Fudge. It can. It can. But you indicated that every
single person that gets it is eligible. That is what you said.
I just want to be clear.
Ms. Squier. And I believe in New Mexico that is true.
Ms. Fudge. Okay. So that is New Mexico. I can't argue that
because I don't know New Mexico law.
Let me just also ask, I mean, we have heard a lot about
fraud. And my friend Mr. McAllister, who I think is such a
wonderful person, he says that he sees this in his district. I
have heard a lot of my colleagues say the same thing. But I
don't know that anybody reports it.
If there is so much fraud and you see it, why would it not
be reported? We are all sworn to uphold the law in this body.
And so I would hope that if someone sees fraud that they would
report it, because then maybe we could get a handle and maybe
we would give Mr. Doar the answers that he needs as to who is
not doing what they should be.
Ms. Dean, you talked earlier about the strong program
integrity and payment accuracy for SNAP. Could you just
elaborate just a bit on that for me briefly?
Ms. Dean. Sure. First, when an applicant applies, they do
fill out in many places a very lengthy application. And then
they are interviewed, and they have to provide paper
verification of much of what they attest to on the application.
Then an independent body within the state, quality control
reviewers, pull each month a sample of cases and go back and
independently check those. The Federal Government then goes in
and re-reviews those. So it is an incredibly rigorous quality
control system.
Last month, USDA issued the results for over and
underpayments through this system for 2013, and they found
record lows for the seventh consecutive year; states have been
bringing those over and underpayment error rates down. The
overpayment rate fell to 2.6 percent, and the underpayment rate
was 0.6 percent, which means a net loss to the government of
about two percent.
I just want to compare that quickly to other systems. The
last year the IRS took a look at something similar was in 2006,
and there we had 17 percent of taxes legally due went unpaid.
So, frankly, the system does compare relatively well.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
And I remember earlier on Ms. Squier mentioned the fact of
the numbers of people who pay taxes and those who did not. And
I am certain you meant to include in that group that does not
multi-million dollar, multinational corporations as well, whose
taxes could significantly help poor people and hungry people.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that, again, SNAP is
something that people have very strong opinions about, pro and
con. But what I do know is that there are many hungry children
in this country who but for SNAP would not survive from day to
day. There are many people in this country who work hard every
day to make a living and feed their families who just need an
extra help, just need a hand up, not a handout.
And so I am hopeful that at some point we can come together
and decide what to do with this. As far as I am concerned we
have made a decision, the farm bill is done. Let's look forward
to some things that we really can change.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady, the Ranking Member,
and all of the witnesses.
In summary of this hearing, I would point out that it is
clear to me that the Administration and the previous
Administration both promoted SNAP signups in various ways,
particularly with a September 30, 2009, statement. If we are
looking at reining in growth, we didn't speak very much about
the governors abusing the system and sending $20 LIHEAP checks,
but that is part of the categorical eligibility that I would
like to be expanded a little further on.
The work requirements are an alternative. And then some
other discussion we had was block grants, cost-share. And
something that didn't come up that I am interested also is
state investigative authority.
So this has opened up a lot of topics, and I think it has
expanded the dialogue. We have a common cause that it is
important that we take these resources and apply them to the
best use. And I think we all do agree on that.
So under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any questions posed by a Member.
This Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and
Nutrition hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Supplementary Information Submitted by Hon. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a
Representative in Congress from New Mexico
Ms. Squier. There are no current backlogs, ma'am. And you are
right that there was a backlog, and that is because the
Affordable Care Act and the Federal Government sent incomplete
files to us. So we had extra work to do to the tune of about
30,000 of them a month.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. I completely disagree with you about that.
But in any event, I raise these issues to point out that the
partnership is important. New Mexico had a model SNAP program.
It does not today. And that making sure that we have a balanced
approach, Mr. Chairman, I think is an effective way forward.
The following documents were filed by the New Mexico Human Services
Department (HSD) with the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico on July 22, 2014. Table 5, demonstrates a backlog of 15,480
applications for assistance as of July 2014.
Case 1:88-cv-00385-KG-CG Document 519-1 Filed 07/22/14
Exhibit 1
Overdue Plan Status Report as of July 15, 2014
Week 4: July 14-18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical incoming case Handling the No. Cases over Team Goal 1,000
count volume? 30 days Cases/day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SW Bernalillo 290 117
NPC * Dismantled Unit 1,816
Post Backlog Monitoring: **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Cases over
30 days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chaves County ISD 0
Cibola County ISD 0
Colfax County ISD 0
Curry County ISD 9
East Dona Ana County ISD 19
Eddy Artesia County ISD 1
Eddy Carlsbad County ISD 0
Grant County ISD 0
Guadalupe County ISD 0
Hidalgo County ISD 0
Lea County ISD 151
Lincoln County ISD 15
Luna County ISD 0
McKinley County ISD 111
Medicaid Renewal Project 5
Northeast Bernalillo County ISD 169
Northwest Bernalillo County ISD 0
Otero County ISD 0
Quay County ISD 1
Rio Arriba County ISD 0
Roosevelt County ISD 1
San Juan County ISD 39
San Miguel County CSU 0
San Miguel County ISD 0
Sandoval County ISD 6
Santa Fe County ISD 0
Sierra County ISD 2
Socorro County ISD 8
South Dona Ana ISD 0
Southeast Bernalillo County ISD 5
Taos County ISD 0
Tierra Amarilla County ISD 7
Torrance County CSU 47
Torrance County ISD 6
Union County ISD 0
Valencia North County ISD 0
Valencia South County ISD 1
West Dona Ana County ISD 10
-----------------
Total * 2,546
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Total includes Application Registration, Intake, Processing and
Recertification.
** Offices in Post Backlog Monitoring are working overdue cases for Week
4 offices.
Exhibit 2 *
Applications and Eligible Clients Summary
* This Summary is still under review and subject to change. 7/15/2014.
Table--1 Total application received--Summary for ALL PROGRAMS
Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of application received ``IN THE MONTH''.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications Applications Applications Applications Applications
Total from YESNM that from FFM that from ASPEN that from YESNM that from FFM that
Applications are not are not are not are disposed as are disposed as ISD2 Total
Month Registered in registered yet registered yet registered yet duplicate duplicate Applications Applications
ASPEN (pending tasks (pending tasks (pending tasks before before
in ASPEN) in ASPEN) in ASPEN) registration registration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep-13 2,236 9 0 14 52 0 28,288 30,599
Oct-13 7,203 262 1 17 532 0 29,331 37,346
Nov-13 8,757 184 0 2 1,268 0 23,366 33,577
Dec-13 17,730 277 0 3 2,664 0 19,784 40,458
Jan-14 27,681 543 1,486 14 2,702 166 5,422 38,014
Feb-14 35,285 427 79 30 1,675 359 1,236 39,091
Mar-14 44,048 1,024 194 25 1,703 130 284 47,408
Apr-14 46,720 867 142 32 1,582 176 -- 49,519
May-14 53,416 370 111 30 2,450 90 -- 56,467
Jun-14 30,144 89 64 209 1,020 252 -- 31,778
Jul-14 12,111 650 79 767 410 17 -- 14,034
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table--2(a) Total Medicaid applications registered--Broken down by source
Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of Medicaid applications registered for a given month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Medicaid Applications registered (by
source) Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES-NM 9 363 644 1,628 4,108 5,101 6,563 6,520 11,724 4,622 1,545
HSD Kiosk 76 220 280 572 1,065 1,361 1,486 994 997 818 356
Community Partners 0 8 25 225 590 782 1,562 1,155 1,392 387 140
ASPEN 536 1,206 1,617 3,195 5,389 6,782 7,731 8,278 11,898 6,254 2,516
PE/MOSAA 26 43 44 50 91 137 132 454 319 454 218
SDX Interface (SSI Cases) 102 303 295 1,078 406 352 392 426 472 423 148
FFM 0 0 0 0 10,889 3,024 7,537 3,665 1,003 275 207
8ISD2 applications0 811,8790 812,8660 811,1410 810,4780 81,5950 89270 82840 8--0 8--0 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 12,628 15,009 14,046 17,226 24,133 18,466 25,687 21,492 27,805 13,663 5,025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table--2(b) Total Cash applications registered--Broken down by source
Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of cash applications registered for a given month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Cash Applications registered (by
source) Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES-NM 9 164 197 473 955 1,123 1,333 1,481 2,389 1,251 619
HSD Kiosk 75 179 239 411 700 762 834 619 753 601 266
Community Partners 0 6 6 12 44 39 47 40 45 47 19
ASPEN 286 621 586 1,102 1,576 1,440 1,670 2,077 2,262 1,978 899
PE/MOSAA 0 0 0 0 0 -- 2 182 3 3 0
FFM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 -- 0 0
8ISD2 applications0 84,0430 84,2570 82,8240 82,2660 86630 8260 8--0 8--0 8--0 8--0 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 4,413 5,227 3,852 4,264 3,938 3,390 3,886 4,401 5,452 3,880 1,803
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table--2(c) Total SNAP applications registered--Broken down by source
Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of SNAP applications registered for a given month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of SNAP Applications registered (by
source) Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES-NM 33 495 703 1,450 3,235 3,779 4,828 5,456 8,509 3,922 1,738
HSD Kiosk 207 514 737 1,277 2,182 2,585 2,917 1,921 2,142 1,597 719
Community Partners 0 7 9 49 168 231 316 350 328 157 78
ASPEN 852 1,762 2,250 4,061 5,589 5,517 6,683 7,751 7,874 6,093 2,552
PE/MOSAA 0 3 1 2 4 5 8 547 11 3 3
FFM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0
8ISD2 applications0 812,3660 812,2080 89,4010 87,0400 83,1640 82830 8--0 8--0 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 13,458 14,989 13,101 13,879 14,342 12,401 14,753 16,027 18,864 11,773 5,090
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table--2(d) Total LIHEAP applications registered--Broken down by source
Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of LIHEAP applications registered for a given month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of LIHEAP Applications registered (by
source) Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES-NM 3 183 249 592 1,203 1,428 1,512 1,481 1,952 889 447
HSD Kiosk 31 176 193 386 561 563 439 268 277 202 84
Community Partners 0 2 3 19 52 60 81 40 59 35 14
ASPEN 63 1,378 1,277 2,690 3,213 2,979 2,235 1,923 1,854 1,521 688
PE/MOSAA 0 2 0 1 3 5 4 82 5 7 3
FFM 0 0 0 0 0 7 21 5 3 3 0
8ISD2 applications0 8N/A0 8N/A0 8N/A0 8N/A0 8N/A0 8N/A0 8N/A0 8N/A0 8N/A0 8N/A0 8N/A0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 97 1,741 1,722 3,688 5,032 5,042 4,292 3,799 4,150 2,657 1,236
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A = Not available.
Table--3(a) Total applications certified by program--Pending to Approved
Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that were disposed and approved in the given month (excluding ISD2
figures).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicaid 335 1,333 2,439 4,816 9,711 14,835 18,245 19,085 19,013 16,501 7,109
(include
s Long
Term
Care and
disabled
)
Medicare 33 129 228 326 476 693 879 985 1,190 1,021 503
Savings
Program
Cash 51 266 336 680 1,036 1,109 1,303 1,550 1,830 1,852 893
SNAP (Non 244 1,200 1,826 3,857 5,634 6,472 6,999 7,558 8,263 7,165 3,385
Expedite
)
SNAP 114 417 496 1,875 3,295 3,957 4,702 5,104 5,534 5,417 2,148
(Expedit
e)
LIHEAP 12 2,646 2,651 4,817 5,715 6,014 4,012 2,917 57 52 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 789 5,991 7,976 16,371 25,867 33,080 36,140 37,199 35,887 32,008 14,054
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table--3(b) Total applications certified by program--Pending to Denied
Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that were disposed and denied in the given month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicaid 166 767 1,298 3,155 4,057 5,203 7,850 7,111 7,874 2,348 1,138
Medicare 25 109 246 418 694 1,041 1,166 1,144 1,403 891 493
Savings
Program
Cash 86 454 811 1,206 2,033 2,302 2,544 2,884 3,491 2,430 1,063
SNAP (Non 73 472 1,239 2,075 3,400 3,793 4,451 5,160 5,031 2,041 1,022
Expedite
)
SNAP 27 112 179 294 605 737 789 1,107 1,388 746 299
(Expedit
e)
LIHEAP 37 327 514 1,150 1,678 2,161 1,776 1,630 1,914 4,112 1,842
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 414 2,241 4,287 8,298 12,467 15,237 18,576 19,036 21,101 12,568
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table--3(c) Total applications certified by program--Pending to Closed
Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that were disposed and approved for a month and were closed for the
ongoing months in the given month (excluding ISD2 figures).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicaid 13 27 61 124 125 164 181 225 202 142 54
Medicare 0 1 0 3 1 8 6 5 8 7 3
Savings
Program
Cash 1 14 15 22 56 59 62 53 83 96 54
SNAP (Non 0 14 22 40 56 90 96 108 140 156 99
Expedite
)
SNAP 0 3 4 9 21 28 33 40 49 48 14
(Expedit
e)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 14 56 98 189 238 321 345 391 482 449 224
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table--4 Total number of applications disposed as duplicate before registration
Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that are disposed as duplicate applications before registration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 55 557 1,291 2,682 2,896 2,036 1,867 1,782 2,569 643 428
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table--5 Total number of applications overdue by program as of July 15 2014 (May-July are primarily ineligibles Pending due to Court Order)
Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that completed application registration and a case was associated to the application and the program is overdue
as of July 11, 2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program As of Feb. 28, 2014 As of Mar. 31, 2014 As of April 30, 2014 As of May 31, 2014 As of Jun. 30, 2014 As of Jul. 15, 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicaid 258 728 1,793 5,846 8,010 7,481
Medicare Savings Program 60 112 186 424 623 656
Cash 92 235 426 889 1,410 1,454
SNAP (Non Expedite) 189 580 1,148 2,580 4,370 4,479
SNAP (Expedite) 47 183 397 661 0 0
LIHEAP 1,657 2,794 3,953 5,139 669 1,355
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,303 4,632 7,903 15,539 15,134 15,480
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table--7 Total eligible individuals by program
Description: The summary of this table will provide the total number of eligible clients for a program for a given month (as of 7/15/2014).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicaid 189,171 209,139 400,930 425,505 568,456 589,143 614,606 615,814 616,304 631,381 638,669
Medicare 13,505 13,837 25,255 25,626 35,145 35,842 35,930 35,736 36,283 37,161 38,034
Savings
Program
Cash 16,665 18,665 27,798 28,834 38,915 39,423 38,540 38,338 38,082 39,213 37,787
SNAP 156,386 163,956 321,799 326,145 434,121 435,603 431,658 427,839 422,152 440,103 441,604
LIHEAP 5,049 23,782 20,102 19,122 21,647 13,597 8,799 5,914 3,721 4,176 1,438
8ISD2 8705,8660 8684,5260 8257,4110 8273,8790 85,7180 83660 850 800 800 800 800
Clients0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table--8 Total number of applications from YESNM as of July 15 2014
Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of Self Service Applications registered for a given month (as of July 1, 2014)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
565 7,302 8,868 12,665 17,850 16,400 23,968 12,782 10,901 12,334 4,978
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[all]