[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
FEBRUARY 25, 26;
APRIL 15, 2015;
MAY 20, 2015; AND
JUNE 10, 2015
----------
Serial No. 114-3
----------
Part 1
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 26;
APRIL 15, 2015;
MAY 20, 2015; AND
JUNE 10, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-3
__________
Part 1
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-961 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma JIM COSTA, California
STEVE KING, Iowa TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
BOB GIBBS, Ohio SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia FILEMON VELA, Texas
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JEFF DENHAM, California ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
DOUG LaMALFA, California PETE AGUILAR, California
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
TED S. YOHO, Florida ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
MIKE BOST, Illinois
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
TOM EMMER, Minnesota
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
______
Scott C. Graves, Staff Director
Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Nutrition
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana, Chairwoman
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts,
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania Ranking Minority Member
BOB GIBBS, Ohio MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan PETE AGUILAR, California
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
TED S. YOHO, Florida BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
(ii)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's note: Hon. Tom Emmer, a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota resigned from the House Committee on Agriculture on May 19,
2015.
Editor's note: Hon. Trent Kelly, a Representative in Congress
from Mississippi was appointed to the House Committee on Agriculture on
June 10, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Full Committee--Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 3
Witnesses
Besharov, Douglas J., Norman & Florence Brody Professor,
University of Maryland School of Public Policy; Senior Fellow,
The Atlantic Council, College Park, MD......................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Greenstein, Robert, Founder and President, Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, Washington, D.C............................. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Subcommittee on Nutrition--Thursday, February 26, 2015
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 86
McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from
Massachusetts, opening statement............................... 86
Supplementary material....................................... 149
Walorski, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from Indiana,
opening statement.............................................. 83
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Submitted reports............................................ 141
Submitted letter............................................. 146
Witnesses
Cunnyngham, Karen, Senior Researcher, Mathematica Policy
Research, Washington, D.C...................................... 87
Prepared statement........................................... 89
Supplementary material....................................... 149
Mills, Ph.D., Gregory B., Senior Fellow, Urban Institute,
Washington, D.C................................................ 95
Prepared statement........................................... 97
Ziliak, Ph.D., James P., Founding Director, Center for Poverty
Research; Professor and Carol Martin Gatton Endowed Chair in
Microeconomics, Department of Economics, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY........................................ 103
Prepared statement........................................... 104
Tordella, Stephen J., President, Decision Demographics,
Arlington, VA.................................................. 114
Prepared statement........................................... 115
Full Committee--Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from North
Carolina, prepared statement................................... 159
Submitted statement on behalf of Clyde W. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
Executive Director, Second Harvest Food Bank of Northwest
North Carolina............................................. 222
Bustos, Hon. Cheri, a Representative in Congress from Illinois,
prepared statement............................................. 159
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 155
Prepared statement........................................... 156
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia,
prepared statement............................................. 158
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 157
Witnesses
Maehr, Kate, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer,
Greater Chicago Food Depository, Chicago, IL................... 160
Prepared statement........................................... 161
Supplementary material....................................... 219
Submitted questions.......................................... 224
Green-Patton, Keleigh, Chicago's Community Kitchens, Chicago, IL. 163
Prepared statement........................................... 165
Kunz, Dustin, Research Manager; Salesforce Administrator and
Developer, Texas Hunger Initiative, Baylor University, Waco, TX 166
Prepared statement........................................... 168
Supplementary material....................................... 220
Submitted questions.......................................... 227
Ender, Lynda Taylor, AGE (Advocacy Group for Elders) Director,
The Senior Source, Dallas, TX.................................. 171
Prepared statement........................................... 172
Webb, Jonathan, Director, Foundations and Community Engagement,
Feed the Children, Edmond, OK.................................. 179
Prepared statement........................................... 180
Submitted Material
MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger............................... 223
Subcommittee on Nutrition--Wednesday, May 20, 2015
McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from
Massachusetts, opening statement............................... 233
Walorski, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from Indiana,
opening statement.............................................. 231
Prepared statement........................................... 232
Witnesses
Brown, Kay E., Director, Education, Workforce, and Income
Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington,
D.C............................................................ 234
Prepared statement........................................... 236
Supplementary material....................................... 281
Rachidi, Ph.D., Angela K., Research Fellow in Poverty Studies,
American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C................. 246
Prepared statement........................................... 248
Supplementary material....................................... 281
Submitted question........................................... 296
Nader, Joseph, Executive Chef, Levy Restaurants and Detroit
Lions; Volunteer Chef, Share Our Strength's Cooking Matters,
Detroit, MI.................................................... 251
Prepared statement........................................... 253
Supplementary material....................................... 281
Tussler, Sherrie, Executive Director, Hunger Task Force,
Milwaukee, WI.................................................. 254
Prepared statement........................................... 256
Supplementary material....................................... 283
Submitted Material
Packett, Barb, Chair, Education/Public Policy Committee, National
CSFP Association, submitted letter............................. 284
Full Committee--Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from North
Carolina, submitted letter; on behalf of Clyde W. Fitzgerald,
Jr., Executive Director, Second Harvest Food Bank of Northwest
NC............................................................. 355
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 299
Prepared statement........................................... 300
McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from
Massachusetts, opening statement............................... 301
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 301
Witnesses
Raglow, Patrick J., Executive Director, Catholic Charities of the
Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City, OK................ 302
Prepared statement........................................... 304
Submitted question............................................... 356
Samuels, Jr., Leon A., Executive Director, STRIVE DC, Washington,
D.C............................................................ 308
Prepared statement........................................... 309
Babcock, MCRP, Ph.D., Elisabeth D., President and Chief Executive
Officer, Crittenton Women's Union, Boston, MA.................. 311
Prepared statement........................................... 313
Collins II, Grant E., Senior Vice President, Workforce
Development and Executive Director, Fedcap Rehabilitation
Services, Inc., New York, NY................................... 320
Prepared statement........................................... 322
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM)
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:59 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael
Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Conaway, Rogers, Thompson,
Gibbs, Crawford, Gibson, Benishek, LaMalfa, Davis, Yoho,
Walorski, Allen, Rouzer, Abraham, Newhouse, Peterson, David
Scott of Georgia, Walz, Fudge, McGovern, DelBene, Vela, Lujan
Grisham, Kuster, Bustos, Maloney, Kirkpatrick, Aguilar,
Plaskett, Adams, Graham, and Ashford.
Staff present: Anne DeCesaro, Carly Reedholm, Haley Graves,
Jackie Barber, Leah Christensen, Mary Nowak, Matt Schertz, Paul
Balzano, Scott Graves, Ted Monoson, Faisal Siddiqui, John
Konya, Andy Baker, Anne Simmons, Lisa Shelton, Liz Friedlander,
and Nicole Scott
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
The Chairman. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture
to review the past, present, and future of the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, will come to order. Please join
me in a brief prayer. Heavenly Father, we ask you to be with us
this morning, to grant us wisdom, discernment and knowledge.
Help us have an openness to all points of view as we consider
this very important program, its impact on the lives of
Americans. Dear Lord, please be with those men and women who
protect our rights and freedoms around this world, and their
families. We ask these things in Jesus' name. Amen.
The hearing comes to order, and I want to welcome
everybody. I would like to welcome our witnesses to today's
hearing, and thank them for taking the time to share their
thoughts and answer our questions about the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program. It is the largest program under
the Committee's jurisdiction, and today's hearing marks the
beginning of a top-to-bottom review of the program. We will
conduct this review without preconceived notions and with a
commitment to strengthening the program so it can serve as a
tool to help individuals move up the economic ladder.
SNAP has grown from a pilot program that served just
500,000 people in 1964, to a program that at its peak during
the recession served more than 47 million Americans. Being
post-recession and post-farm bill reauthorization, we are in a
unique position of being able to conduct a proactive review of
the SNAP program, ensuring the program is prepared to address
current and future challenges. There are also a number of
bipartisan reforms enacted in the Agricultural Act of 2014,
including new work pilots, which have not been fully
implemented. Evaluating those important reforms will be a part
of our review.
Another key aspect to be included in this review is the
private social services sector. From churches to not-for-
profits and local food banks, they serve as important partners
in the delivery of critical food assistance in communities
across this country.
While the economy has changed and other welfare programs
have adjusted to meet changing needs, it does not appear that
SNAP has. We have seen the overall unemployment rate fall, yet
the number of long-term unemployed remains high. The lengthy
recovery following the 2009 recession has brought in a new
group of healthy, working-age recipients, who in the past had
not used SNAP. This is a new dynamic not previously experienced
following other recessions when periods of unemployment spells
were much shorter.
Some programs have responded to the changing needs of its
target population. We have watched as TANF, Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, program has moved increasingly
toward more services, such as transportation and child care, as
compared to cash assistance, in order to better support the
needs of working parents.
We can all agree that no one ought to go hungry in America,
and SNAP is essential in protecting the most vulnerable
citizens during tough times. For many it is a vital lifeline to
keeping food on the table. What we don't want is for this
program to hold people back from achieving their potential. I
believe there is a role for SNAP, but we need to have a
complete, clear understanding of its mission and purpose.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as we
explore where this program has been, were it is now, and what
it could be for participants and taxpayers in the future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
Congress from Texas
I want to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing and thank them
for taking the time to share their thoughts and answer our questions
about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It is the largest
program under the Committee's jurisdiction, and today's hearing marks
the beginning of a top-to-bottom review of the program. We will conduct
this review without preconceived notions and with a commitment to
strengthening the program so it can serve as a tool to help individuals
move up the economic ladder.
SNAP has grown from a pilot program that served just 500,000 people
in 1964 to a program that at its peak during the recession served more
than 47 million Americans. Being post-recession and post-farm bill
reauthorization, we are in the unique position of being able to conduct
a proactive review of SNAP, ensuring the program is prepared to address
current and future challenges. There are also a number of bipartisan
reforms enacted in the Agricultural Act of 2014, including new work
pilots, which have not been fully implemented. Evaluating those
important reforms will be a key part of our review.
Another key aspect to be included in this review is the private
social services sector. From churches to nonprofits and local food
banks, they serve as important partners in the delivery of critical
food assistance in communities across the country.
While the economy has changed and other welfare programs have
adjusted to meet changing needs, it does not appear that SNAP has. We
have seen the overall unemployment rate fall, yet the number of long-
term unemployed remains high. The lengthy ``recovery'' following the
2009 recession has brought in a new group of healthy, working age
recipients, who in the past had not used SNAP. This is a new dynamic
not previously experienced following other recessions when periods of
unemployment were much shorter.
Some programs have responded to the changing needs of its target
population. We've watched as the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families, or TANF, program has moved increasingly toward more services,
such as transportation and child care, compared to cash assistance, in
order to better support the needs of working parents.
We can all agree that no one ought to go hungry in America, and
SNAP is essential in protecting the most vulnerable citizens during
tough times. For many it is a vital lifeline to keeping food on the
table. What we don't want is for this program to hold people back from
achieving their potential. I believe there is a role for SNAP, but we
need to have a complete and clear understanding of its mission and
purpose.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as we explore
where this program has been, were it is now, and what it could be for
recipients and taxpayers in the future.
The Chairman. I now yield to the Ranking Member for his
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am pleased to
be here today with the Committee as we begin the review of the
SNAP program. I think it is important that the Committee learn
as much as we can about programs under our jurisdiction, and
that is why I am supportive of the reviews the Chairman plans
to undertake in this Congress.
I hope this will be an opportunity to get past the rhetoric
on both sides and get a better understanding of how SNAP works,
who the program serves, and what, if anything, can be done to
make it better. And while I support this review, I hope the
Committee will focus on some of the things that are
problematic, and not some of the rhetoric that we have seen in
the past. Some people in your leadership overplayed their
hands, and you lost the opportunity to reform that we could
have done back in 2013, and it still is a problem for me that
we have a system where some states, where they're using this
categorical eligibility, they are using the TANF guidelines to
determine who gets benefits. The Federal rule is 130 percent,
but if your TANF is above that, that is what you may use. So in
my area, in Moorhead, Minnesota, Minnesota is at 165 percent of
poverty. That is what you have to meet to qualify. But in North
Dakota, across the river, they use 200 percent. So you have
people in the same community basically being treated completely
differently. In Texas, it is 165 percent. In Arizona, it is 185
percent. What sense does this make?
Now, this was put in place to make it easier for the people
to administer the program, supposedly. And I guess that is
fine, but I just think one of the big problems of the system is
that we treat people differently in different parts of the
country, and I don't think it is right.
And the other thing everybody fixates on: work
requirements. I was here when we did the work requirements and
I supported it back in TANF, but when we have looked at this in
SNAP, and when we have administered it, we have always put in
waivers. And so you have all parts of the country where there
are no work requirements because they have waivers. And to be
honest, those areas are going to have waivers forever, no
matter what we do. What sense does that make?
Now, in my area, we have a company--the biggest problem I
have in my area is I hear from everybody we can't find enough
people to fill the jobs that we have. Every place. We have two,
three percent unemployment. We have a company that is paying
$16.50 an hour to start. They pay your full healthcare: 100
percent. They are advertising on television every day and they
still can't get enough workers to fill the jobs. They have
3,000 people working. And then we are going to jerry rig the
whole system because of work requirements?
So I hope that whatever we end up doing with SNAP--first of
all, I don't think we should do anything because we did the
farm bill, and it is a 5 year bill and they had their chance
and it didn't get done. But if we are going to look at
anything, we have to look at how we treat people differently in
different parts of the country. I just don't think it is right,
and in the review, I hope we take a look at that.
So I look forward to hearing the testimony, and we will see
how all this goes. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back.
The chair requests that other Members submit their opening
statements for the record so that the witnesses may begin their
testimony to ensure there is ample time for questions.
I would like to welcome to our witness table today Mr. Doug
Besharov, Professor at the School of Public Policy, University
of Maryland, College Park, Maryland; and Mr. Robert Greenstein,
Director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington,
D.C.
Mr. Besharov, the microphone is yours, and begin when you
are ready.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS J. BESHAROV, NORMAN &
FLORENCE BRODY PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF
PUBLIC POLICY; SENIOR FELLOW, THE
ATLANTIC COUNCIL, COLLEGE PARK, MD
Mr. Besharov. Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson,
and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to
testify about this very important topic.
I am a Professor, as Chairman Conaway mentioned, at the
University of Maryland, where I teach courses on poverty
alleviation and program evaluation, and I am also a Senior
Fellow at the Atlantic Council, where I conduct research on
international competitiveness and comparative domestic policy.
SNAP is a large and complicated program. Together with
other safety net programs, civil rights advances and economic
growth, SNAP has eradicated income-related severe hunger and
malnutrition among the poor that motivated its original
creation.
I was in Mississippi in 1967, and I saw starvation and
malnutrition up close. As a civil rights worker in the
Mississippi Delta, I literally carried young African-American
children who were ill and malnourished into hospitals that
otherwise would not treat them. We would walk in and we would
say, if you don't accept this child, Marian Wright--her name
was Marian Wright in those days, not Marian Wright Edelman,
will be here tomorrow morning with a subpoena.
So I saw hunger and starvation up close. And the parties
have switched. Those were the days when the Democratic Party
held great sway in the South, and it was the southern
leadership of the Congress that made it extremely difficult to
get African-Americans on welfare, and there was starvation. The
role of the food stamp program was a way around that exclusion,
and the major expansions, for example, occurred under President
Nixon as well as Democratic Presidents.
But that was then and this is now. SNAP's basic framework
is anchored in the past. As my testimony describes, and as Bob
Greenstein's describes, SNAP is now America's major social
welfare program, it is an income supplementation program. His
graphs and mine tell about the same story. It played an
important role in the last recession. This is a worthy role. I
will show you a few graphs in a minute, but what the story
today is, the role of the program has to change. We are not in
1967 Mississippi, we are in a program with a $75 billion price
tag that is income support, and should be treated as an income
support program.
Based on my research, there is a great need to modernize
the program and to coordinate it with TANF, with unemployment
insurance, with SSI, with SSDI, and as well, the earned income
tax credit. There are also small wrinkles that create, as Mr.
Peterson said, oddities like eligibility at 200 percent of the
poverty line in some states. We also have a major issue, in my
opinion. The rule about household income essentially encourages
cohabiters to not report that they are sharing a household, and
it definitely discourages them from getting married. The moment
they get married, if he has income or if she has sufficient
income, the food stamp benefit goes to 0. So we have a
possibility of a marriage disincentive, we have a possibility
of a work disincentive.
My bottom line I will get to in a minute, but let me draw
your attention to Figure 1, which is on page 3 of my
testimony--I am embarrassed, I don't have overheads like Bob,
but we have--I only have two graphs. Figure 1, Bob has these
data as well, shows the growth and enrollment of TANF, or not
growth in TANF, UI, disability and SNAP, and I would draw your
attention to a few things there. First, TANF caseloads have
hardly grown since 2005, even in the face of massive economic
disruption, and you can see the disruption in the figures for
UI and unemployment. Unemployment, of course, went way up in
the Great Recession.
What filled in for the needs of people who were unemployed,
and the answer is, as you can see from the graph, are SNAP, and
to a much lesser extent but also a real extent, disability. It
was in the states' interest to put people on SNAP and
disability, as opposed to TANF. With TANF, every additional
person on TANF is a 100 percent state cost. I will say that
again, a 100 percent state cost. And every additional person
put on SNAP is 100 percent Federal cost. The temptation is too
great. The need to fix these problems, in my opinion, is great.
Let me draw your attention to Figure 2. Again, Mr. Peterson
talked about the apparent great need for entry-level employees.
There is an argument in the field about how much programs like
SNAP and UI, discourage people from looking for work, for being
in work. We could spend weeks on this conversation. Let me say
that in the U.S., this is a long-term trend. I picked out some
numbers from my testimony. In 1970, 96 percent of low-education
whites and blacks, 96 percent were working. In 2012 it was 79
percent. For those whites and blacks without a high school
diploma, the figure went from 89 percent to 70 percent. This is
important not just because we worry about the well-being of
people who are not working, but as President Obama's chairman
of economic advisors has said, to get this economy moving at
full speed, we need a much higher percentage of the working-age
population working. In this graph, you can see even as
unemployment has gone down, even as GDP has gone up, both labor
force participation, the top line, and the more telling
employment-to-population ratio, have gone down, which is to say
historically, we have a much smaller percentage of our
population working. That is sort of like fighting the vestiges
of the past recession with one hand behind our backs.
Everyone from the President to The Washington Post to The
New York Times identifies low labor force participation as a
serious problem. Janet Yellen calls it hidden or shadow
unemployment.
I believe these issues are connected. It doesn't mean we
should throw everyone off SNAP, but it does mean that SNAP and
other income or means-tested programs have to adjust to this
new reality.
Thank you very much, and I think, if I am looking at this
time, I went over. My apologies.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Besharov follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas J. Besharov, Norman & Florence Brody
Professor, University of Maryland School of Public Policy; Senior
Fellow, The Atlantic Council, College Park, MD
Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify on this important
topic.
My name is Douglas Besharov, and I am a Professor at the University
of Maryland School of Public Policy, where I teach courses on poverty
alleviation and program evaluation. I also direct our Welfare Reform
Academy (WRA) and our Center for International Policy Exchanges (CIPE).
I am also a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, where I conduct
research on international competitiveness and comparative domestic
policy.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a large and
complicated program. Together with other safety-net programs, civil
rights advances, and economic growth, SNAP eradicated income-related,
severe hunger and malnutrition among the poor that motivated the
program's creation.
In the summer of 1967, I saw American starvation and malnutrition
up close. As a civil rights worker in the Mississippi Delta, I
(literally) carried ill and malnourished black children into hospitals.
(The hospitals--without this then-law student from the North standing
in the admitting room and threatening a lawsuit--ordinarily refused to
treat poor African Americans.) The children were starving because their
families had no money to buy food. Making things worse, many black
families were denied welfare, simply because of their race. (I saw
mothers with young children who applied for welfare being offered bus
tickets to Chicago.)
SNAP's basic shape, however, is anchored in the past--even as the
needs of recipients and the U.S. economy have changed. As a result,
major issues before the Congress are the recent growth of the SNAP
caseload and its behavioral and budgetary implications for the
country.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See generally, Randy A. Aussenberg, Reauthorization of SNAP and
Other Nutrition Programs in the Next Farm Bill: Issues for the 113th
Congress (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, December
2013), https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43332.pdf (accessed February
23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A main reason SNAP (formally the Food Stamp Program) enjoys wide
political support is that the public continues to view it as an anti-
hunger program when, for many recipients, it is really an income-
supplementation program. This is also a worthy purpose, but because the
program was not designed for that purpose, the result is a program that
has many unintended and, many believe, negative effects.
Therefore, I applaud this Committee's multi-faceted re-examination
of the program, its past, present, and future. Based on my research and
analysis, I think the key challenge is to modernize a massive program
that started as a small program of food assistance to become the
primary U.S. program of income support. As I describe below, that would
mean coordinating the SNAP program with Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), Unemployment Insurance, Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and the Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC) and other tax credits. In doing so, there
should be an effort to rationalize the current patchwork of programs
that make up the U.S. safety-net in a way that balances what looks to
be long-term weak demand for labor economic with the need to minimize
the work and marriage disincentives in current law. (See Figure 1.)
Figure 1
Unemployment and Enrollment in Select Cash and Noncash Government
Programs
2005-2013
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Note: All data are from most recent year available.
Program Origins
In 1939, the Congress authorized the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to implement a Food Stamp Program for individuals
receiving direct relief payments. Individuals who bought orange ``food
stamps'' at face value (accepted by store owners for any product) were
given free blue stamps worth 50 percent of the value of the orange
stamps. (This amounted to a \1/3\ subsidy up to $0.75 worth of food.
That would be $12.77 in 2014 dollars.) The blue stamps could only be
used to ``purchase'' ``surplus food,'' that is, food that the Federal
Government had purchased from farmers (to place a floor on its price).
This food stamp program was ended in 1943, after general economic
conditions had improved as a result of the World War II
mobilization.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Dennis Roth, Food Stamps, 1932-1977: From Provisional and Pilot
Programs to Permanent Policy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, July 2013), http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/
foodstamps.htm (accessed February 16, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the 1950s and early 1960s, the Federal Government continued
to distribute surplus food, essentially by providing the food to local
social welfare organizations such as food banks. Over time, support
grew for a revived, food stamp-type program on the grounds that it
would be more effective than direct distribution of surplus food. In
1961, President John Kennedy, who, as a senator, had introduced a bill
to create a food stamp program, issued an executive order that created
a pilot Food Stamp Program and also proposed legislation to create a
permanent program. The Food Stamp Act passed in 1964, making the
program permanent, but for the first few years, it remained relatively
small. Localities were not required to implement the program, and some
decided against doing so.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Dennis Roth, Food Stamps, 1932-1977: From Provisional and Pilot
Programs to Permanent Policy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, July 2013), http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/
foodstamps.htm (accessed February 16, 2015); and U.S. Department of
Agriculture, ``A Short History of SNAP,'' http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/
short-history-snap (accessed February 16, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1967, Senator Robert F. Kennedy famously visited rural
Mississippi (with the national media accompanying him) to document that
hunger was a serious problem for poor, even with the new food stamp
program. In his words, they saw black children with ``bellies . . .
swollen with hunger.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, ``Robert F.
Kennedy,'' http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/The-Kennedy-Family/Robert-F-
Kennedy.aspx (accessed February 25, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the reasons that the problem was greatest in the rural South
is that many local welfare agencies systematically excluded African
Americans families from AFDC and other cash benefits. In the ensuing
years, various steps were taken to alleviate malnutrition, particularly
by increasing access to food stamps. An important step was 1970
legislation (proposed by President Richard Nixon) that removed the
provision that food stamp recipients pay a defined amount of their
income in order to receive food stamps (the ``purchase requirement'')
for families with incomes below $30 a month (about $185 a month in 2014
dollars), reduced the purchase requirement for families that did not
qualify for free food stamps, and increased the value of monthly food
stamps by about 40 percent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Dennis Roth, Food Stamps, 1932-1977: From Provisional and Pilot
Programs to Permanent Policy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, July 2013), http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/
foodstamps.htm (accessed February 16, 2015); and U.S. Department of
Agriculture, ``A Short History of SNAP,'' http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/
short-history-snap (accessed February 16, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than directly take on the Democrats in control of these
southern states--as well as powerful Southern Democrats in Congress--
expanded food assistance served as an end run around their opposition.
Today's program is still shaped by this politically expedient shortcut.
The End of Malnutrition
As I mentioned, as late as the 1960s, symptoms of malnutrition (and
especially child malnutrition)--including emaciation, kwashiorkor,
marasmus, stunting, wasting, and even death--were a reality in America.
However, the liberalization of AFDC and food stamps in the late 1960s
and early 1979s, and their consequent large expansions (plus increased
opportunities for African Americans), all but eradicated these
conditions. Besides the $75+ billion SNAP program, for example, annual
Federal expenditures for school breakfasts and lunches have grown to
$16 billion and for WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children) to $6 billion.
In 1997, Rebecca Blank, who recently served as Acting and Deputy
Secretary of Commerce in the Obama Administration, reported, ``Evidence
of severe malnutrition-related health problems has almost disappeared
in this country.'' \6\ In fact, since the 1970s, the physical
manifestations of real malnutrition have all but disappeared from the
nation's health data. Between 1973 and 2011,\7\ the percent of children
who were underweight declined from 7.3 percent to 3.5 percent and the
percent of children who were short in stature declined from nine
percent to 6.3 percent.\8\ (Many of these children suffered from other
illnesses or diseases that caused their being underweight.)
Furthermore, over the past thirty-five years, there have been almost
zero cases of children suffering from protein-energy malnutrition (PEM)
and, where cases of PEM have been diagnosed in adults, the vast
majority are the result of chronic diseases or drug addictions, and not
insufficient food.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Rebecca Blank, It Takes a Nation (New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1997).
\7\ The survey cited here, the Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance
Survey, was discontinued after 2011.
\8\ Centers for Disease Control, ``2011 Pediatric Nutrition
Surveillance: National Summary of Trends in Growth and Anemia
Indicators Children Aged Less Than 5 years,'' http://www.cdc.gov/
pednss/pednss_tables/html/pednss_national_table12.htm (accessed July
29, 2013).
\9\ Author's calculations from U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control, ``National Hospital Discharge
Survey,'' http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhds/nhds_questionnaires.htm
(accessed July 29, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the face of this progress, advocates turned to estimates of
``food insecurity'' as a rallying point for continuing and expanding
SNAP. (So does the Obama Administration.) Every year since 1995, the
Federal Government has conducted a survey called ``The Food Security
Survey.'' In 2013, it found that 14.3 percent of American households
were ``food insecure,'' but many think that this is an artificial
construct, as it is based on answers to eighteen different questions
that express some uncertainty about having sufficient financial
resources to obtain enough food to meet the needs of all household
members even once in the past year. In the same survey, only 5.6
percent of all households actually reported that one or more households
members were hungry--even once in the past year--because they could not
afford food.\10\ Only 0.9 percent of households with children reported
that one or more children were hungry at least once during the year. A
far cry from the 1960s, the formative years for most Federal feeding
programs. (See Table 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Christian Gregory, and Anita Singh,
Household Food Security in the United States in 2013 (Alexandria, VA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, September 2014), http://
www.ers.usda.gov/media/1565415/err173.pdf (accessed February 23, 2015).
Table 1
Food Insecurity/Hunger
(even once in the past year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Food Insecure (FI)
--------------------------------------
Household Type and Poverty Status FI with
All FI FI with Hunger of
Hunger Children
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All households:
With and without children 14.3% 5.6% --
With children under age 18 19.5% 5.9% 0.9%
Poor households:
With and without children 42.1% 18.5% --
With children under age 18 45.6% -- 2.7%
Households <130% poverty:
With and without children 38.9% 16.7% --
With children under age 18 44.2% -- 2.4%
Households %185% poverty:
With and without children 6.7% 2.3% --
With children under age 18 7.7% -- --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Christian Gregory, and Anita Singh,
Household Food Security in the United States in 2013 (Alexandria, VA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, September 2014), http://
www.ers.usda.gov/media/1565415/err173.pdf (accessed February 23,
2015).
However one feels about this controversial and, much criticized
concept, it is a very different problem than malnutrition and should
not be the basis for making policy for a $75+ billion program.
Obesity
Today, instead of hunger, the central nutritional problem facing
the poor, indeed all Americans, is not too little food but, rather too
much--or at least too many calories. Although there are still some
pockets of real hunger in America, they are predominantly among
populations with behavioral or emotional problems. In 1998, for
example, then-Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, when discussing the
problem of childhood obesity, said that ``The simple fact is that more
people die in the United States of too much food than of too little,
and the habits that lead to this epidemic become ingrained at an early
age.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Douglas J. Besharov, We're Feeding the Poor as If They're
Starving (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, December
2002), http://www.aei.org/publication/were-feeding-the-poor-as-if-
theyre-starving/ (accessed February 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, as many as 70 percent of low-income adults are overweight,
about ten percent more than the non-poor. Adolescents from low-income
families are twice as likely to be overweight (16 percent vs. 8
percent). Racial disparities are even greater. Almost 82 percent of
African-American women, for example, are overweight--almost 30 percent
more than white women. Even more serious, about 57 percent of African-
American women are obese--\2/3\ more than white women.\12\ (See Table
2.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Cynthia L. Ogden, Margaret D. Carroll, Brian K. Kit, and
Katherine M. Flegal, ``Prevalence of Childhood and Adult Obesity in the
United States, 2011-2012,'' Journal of the American Medical Association
311, no. 8 (February 26, 2014): 806-814.
Table 2
Overweight/Obesity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Overweight/Obese
-------------------------
Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity 1961-62
1963-65 * 2011-2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men 50/11 72/34
Women 40/16 67/37
Children 4/-- 15/--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men:
White 50/11 73/33
Black 44/14 69/37
Hispanic -- 78/41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women:
White 38/14 65/34
Black 59/27 82/57
Hispanic -- 76/43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children ages 6-11:
Boys:
White 4/-- 27/9
Black 2/-- 39/26
Hispanic -- 49/29
Girls:
White 5/-- 33/18
Black 5/-- 37/22
Hispanic -- 44/23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1961-62: for adults; and 1963-65: for children.
Source: Cynthia L. Ogden, Margaret D. Carroll, Brian K. Kit, and
Katherine M. Flegal, ``Prevalence of Childhood and Adult Obesity in
the United States, 2011-2012,'' Journal of the American Medical
Association 311, no. 8 (February 26, 2014): 806-814.
Overweight and obesity refer to excess amounts of body fat. The
commonly used standards to determine whether a person is overweight or
obese are based on medical data indicating weight levels (for a given
height) that are associated with increased mortality and various health
risks.\13\ For example, a man 510" would be considered overweight at
175 pounds and obese at 210 pounds. A woman 54" would be considered
overweight at 145 pounds and obese at 175 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The standard measure used to measure overweight and obesity is
the body mass index (BMI). The BMI is calculated as weight in kilograms
divided by the square of height in meters (or weight in pounds divided
by the square of height in inches multiplied by 703). A BMI of 25.0 or
more is used to define overweight. In children, overweight is defined
as sex- and age-specific BMI above the 95th percentile, based on growth
charts from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Obesity is defined
as a BMI of 30.0 or more. Other methods used to measure overweight and
obesity in epidemiologic studies include waist circumference, skin-fold
thickness, and waist-to-hip ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being overweight is not simply a matter of aesthetics. The growing
girth of Americans is a major health concern. The Harvard School of
Public Health has summarized a number of studies of the effects of
obesity. Among the findings are that women with a BMI of 35 or higher
have a risk of developing type 2 diabetes that is 93 times higher than
women with BMI lower than 22, individuals who are overweight have a 32
percent higher risk of coronary artery disease compared to individuals
with normal weight; and those who are obese have an 81 percent higher
risk; and that being overweight and obese increases the risk of stroke
by 22 percent and 64 percent, respectively.\14\ Obesity, of course, is
more serious, causing an estimated 50 to 100 percent increase in
premature deaths (estimated to be 300,000 deaths per year).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Harvard School of Public Health, ``Weight Problems Take a
Hefty Toll on Body and Mind,'' http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-
prevention-source/obesity-consequences/health-effects/#references
(accessed February 23, 2015).
\15\ David B. Allison, Kevin R. Fontaine, JoAnn E. Manson, June
Stevens, and Theodore B. VanItallie, ``Annual Deaths Attributable to
Obesity in the United States,'' Journal of the American Medical
Association, vol. 282, no. 16, October 27, 1999, pp.1530-1538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite this massive increase in overweight and obesity among the
poor, Federal feeding programs still operate under their nearly half-
century-old objective of increasing food consumption. Few experts are
willing to say that Federal feeding programs are making the poor fat,
although the evidence points in that direction. But no expert thinks
they do very much to fight this growing public health problem.
SNAP benefits work as intended, raising caloric consumption by as
much as ten percent more than if recipients were given cash. It's like
when you buy tickets for a set number of rides before entering an
amusement park. The tendency is to buy more than one needs and, rather
than return the unused ones for a refund, it is easier to take that one
or two more rides before leaving. That's of course why the parks sell
them that way. The only difference is that unused food stamps can't be
turned in for cash. (The fact that people do not want to use all their
food stamps for food helps explain why a black market has developed
with them.)
A 2008 research synthesis by USDA economists found that some
evidence that long-term receipt of SNAP benefits increased obesity in
non-elderly adult women by between four and ten percentage points, but
they did not find any effects on obesity for other subgroups.\16\
However, these were econometric studies that, by their nature, have
difficulty in controlling for selection effects or other factors that
might affect obesity rates. On the other hand, we do know from more
rigorous methods that SNAP benefits can leads to increased consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Michele Ver Ploeg and Katherine Ralson, Food Stamps and
Obesity: What Do We Know? (Alexandria, VA: Economic Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, March 2008), http://www.ers.usda.gov/
media/210655/eib34_reportsummary_1_.pdf (accessed February 17, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the early 1990s, the USDA commissioned two random assignment
studies of the Food Stamp Program where some recipients were provided
cash instead of Food Stamps. Peter Rossi summarized the findings of
these studies: ``The reductions in food expenditures were $0.18-$0.28
for each dollar provided in the form of cash, compared with
conventional food stamps. . . . These studies show that providing
income in the form of food stamps leads to more food consumption than
an equivalent dollar amount given in unearmarked form.'' \17\ This
``cashing out'' of food stamps did not result in unhealthy diets nor
the mismanagement of family finances. Recipients, continued to get well
above the recommended dietary allowances for most nutrients.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Peter H. Rossi, Feeding the Poor: Assessing Federal Food Aid
(Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1998): 36-37.
\18\ See Steven Carlson, ``An Overview of Food Stamp Cashout
Research in the Food and Nutrition Service,'' in Nancy Fasciano, Daryl
Hall, and Harold Beebout (eds.), New Directions in Food Stamp Policy
Research (U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 25, 1993), 23-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is unclear, however, what effect, if any, the 2002 adoption of
the Electronic Benefit Transfer system has had on this behavior.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Since the implementation of Electronic Benefit Transfer cards
to all SNAP recipients in 2002, SNAP recipients have been allowed to
rollover unspent benefits at the end of the month to the next month
which may have a dampening effect on over-consumption in a given month.
Such savings, however, cannot be used for purchases of other goods, so
it is likely that recipients spend the excess in future months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The failure to be clear about SNAP as a form of income support has
removed the possibility of using this important tool to address
America's dietary and obesity problems.
SNAP as the Primary U.S. Social Assistance Program
How should we think about the current SNAP program's role in
maintaining this progress? It is most accurate to think of SNAP as a
form of income assistance that allows recipients to purchase food.
Thus, in its Budget and Economic Outlook reports, the Congressional
Budget Office treats SNAP as an ``income support'' program along with
TANF, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit,
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and unemployment compensation.\20\
In fact, the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) classifies SNAP as the primary U.S. ``social assistance''
program and as the equivalent of other countries' cash welfare
programs. (It does not include TANF because of its narrow scope.) \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook:
2015-2025 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office, January
2015), https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/
49892-Outlook2015.pdf (accessed February 18, 2015).
\21\ Herwig Immervoll, Minimum Income Benefits in OECD Countries:
Policy Design, Effectiveness, and Challenges (Bonn: IZA, December
2009), http://ftp.iza.org/dp4627.pdf (accessed February 17, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP acts indirectly to improve the nutrition and health of low-
income Americans by enabling them to purchase and consume more food.
Moreover, eligibility for SNAP now reaches to those with incomes high
enough to afford an adequate diet--but often not the other necessities
of contemporary American life. This does not make the program less
socially valuable. As I will describe below, especially since the
passage of TANF, SNAP is the major safety-net program for those who
have exhausted their UI benefits and have insufficient other income or
assets.
Many program advocates, however, have chosen to leave this reality
ambiguous--because they believe that it is only the prospect of hunger
that is the reason for the program's strong support among the public.
They could be correct, but the result is to stifle efforts to update
the program to reflect developments in other means-tested government
programs, as well as economic and social conditions generally.
SNAP benefits now far outstrip TANF benefits (in average size and
number of recipients), making SNAP (and its predecessor Food Stamp
Program) the primary element of the U.S. income support system.\22\
This developed by historical happenstance--and the fact that 100
percent of SNAP benefits are paid for by the Federal Government (while
they were shared under AFDC and are, essentially, a 100 percent state
cost under TANF).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See generally Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Food and
Nutrition Programs: Reducing Hunger, Bolstering Nutrition (Washington,
D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 2005), http://
www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=510 (accessed February 16, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, what started as a small Federal nutrition program was
expanded in the 1960s and 1970s because of apparent hunger in states
that had inadequate welfare systems. (That is, they had low benefits
and often discriminated against African Americans and other
minorities.) The Federal food stamp program essentially worked around
this problem by ignoring state welfare agencies--a disconnect that
continues fifty years later even as the initial reason disappeared.
Second, because SNAP would fill in between 30 and 45 percent of the
difference, in the 1970s through 1990s, many states kept AFDC payments
lower than they might otherwise have set them. For example, in 1991,
California cut its cash assistance (AFDC) to reduce state spending on
the poor by $10.8 billion between 1991 and 1996. However, the state's
budget analysts calculated that this reduction would trigger a $4
billion rise in food stamp payments, so the net loss to the poor
dropped to $6.8 billion.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Douglas J. Besharov and Karen Baehler, ``The Perverse Federal
Incentives for Welfare Cuts,'' Governing (February 1993), http://
www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/welfare/welfare-0293.shtml (accessed
February 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, again because the Federal Government paid program costs,
there was a tendency to encourage low-income families to leave their
time-limited TANF programs while continuing on the Federal SNAP program
(and, when applicable, being transferred to Federal disability
programs). Pamela Loprest and Sheila Zedlewski of the Urban Institute
used the National Survey of American Families to examine former
recipients of cash welfare benefits who left the program but not for
employment. They found that between 1997 and 2002, the percentage of
these ``welfare leavers'' receiving food stamps increased from about 46
percent to about 55 percent.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Pamela Loprest and Sheila Zedlewski, The Changing Role of
Welfare in the Lives of Low-Income Families with Children (Washington,
D.C.: Urban Institute, August 2006), http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/
311357_occa73.pdf (accessed February 18, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, in the wake of the Great Recession, long-term unemployment
was at an all-time high. (Even now, 31.5 percent of the unemployed have
been jobless for 6 months or more.) \25\ After their Unemployment
Insurance benefits expire, many unemployed turn to SNAP, especially
given recent liberalizations. In 2012, Theresa Anderson, John A.
Kirlin, and Michael Wiseman examined longitudinal UI and SNAP data in
seven states and found evidence of this phenomenon.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Table A-12. Unemployed Persons
by Duration of Unemployment, Seasonally Adjusted,'' http://www.bls.gov/
web/empsit/cpseea12.htm (accessed February 23, 2015).
\26\ ``Concurrent SNAP-UI receipt is substantially more common than
sequenced receipt, though this ratio shifts over time. [B]y the end of
2008 most new SNAP recipients in every state receive a UI payment in
the same month that they begin SNAP. On average, in the five states
over this timeframe, 68.4 percent of the SNAP-UI connection among all
SNAP recipients is concurrent (while the other 31.6 percent is
sequenced) and 79.2 percent of the SNAP-UI connection among new SNAP
recipients is concurrent (with the other 20.8 percent sequenced).''
Theresa Anderson, John A. Kirlin, and Michael Wiseman, Pulling
Together: Linking Unemployment Insurance and Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program Administrative Data to Study Effects of the Great
Recession (Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012),
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1948&context=usdaarsfacpub (accessed February
23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explaining Recent Increases in SNAP Caseloads
The recent sharp growth of the SNAP caseload began long before the
Great Recession. It began under Republican President George W. Bush at
a time when employment was in reasonably strong shape, although
employment had not recovered from its pre-recession levels. Between
2000 and 2013, SNAP spending grew from about $20.6 billion to about
$79.9 billion (in 2014 dollars) and the SNAP caseload increased from
17.2 million individuals to about 47.6 million individuals.\27\ (In
2014, as the economy improved, those numbers dropped to $74.1 billion
and 46.5 million individuals.) In comparison, during this same period,
the number of individuals in poverty increased from 31.5 million to
45.3 million. Since the start of the Great Recession in 2008, the
number of SNAP recipients has increased by 68.7 percent between 2008
and 2013, even as the number of individuals in poverty increased by
only 16.5 percent.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs,''
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm (accessed August 11, 2014).
\28\ U.S. Census Bureau, ``Table 2. Poverty Status, by Family
Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin,'' http://www.census.gov/hhes/
www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov2.xls (accessed August 8, 2014); and
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs,''
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
(accessed August 8, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why have the caseloads and expenditures increased so much? Although
a struggling economy and an increase in poverty certainly contribute to
the increase in the enrollment of SNAP, statutory changes and local
discretion that result in expanded eligibility and loosened criteria
for determining eligibility have also been contributors. Here are some
of the key changes in SNAP: \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The figures below for number of households involved have not
been corrected for likely duplication.
Nullified assets tests. To meet SNAP asset requirements, a
household must have less than $2,000 in assets ($3,000 for
households with a disabled individual) and no more than one
vehicle that must be worth less than $4,650. (Houses,
retirement accounts, and personal property are not counted as
assets.) There are two exceptions to these rules. For vehicles,
the Agricultural Appropriations Act of 2000 allows states to
use the vehicle asset test of their TANF programs instead of
the SNAP vehicle asset test.\30\ As of November 2012, thirty-
four states and D.C. exclude the value of all vehicles and
another fifteen states exclude the value of one vehicle.\31\
For the more general asset test, under the categorical
eligibility provisions issued by USDA regulations in 2000
(described below), states may use the asset tests in their TANF
programs in place of the SNAP asset test. Thirty-six states
exercise this option and do not have an asset test for SNAP
recipients.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ David Super and Stacy Dean, New State Options to Improve the
Food Stamp Vehicle Rule (Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, January 2001), http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=870
(accessed July 13, 2012).
\31\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program: State Options Report (Alexandria, VA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, November 2012), http://www.fns.usda.gov/
sites/default/files/10-State_Options.pdf (accessed February 22, 2015).
\32\ Gene Falk and Randy A. Aussenberg, The Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program: Categorical Eligibility (Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Research Service, March 2012), http://
www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/R42054.pdf (accessed July 13,
2012).
Categorical eligibility to incomes of 200 percent of
poverty. Categorical eligibility for SNAP was first introduced
in the Food Security Act of 1985. Recipients of AFDC, SSI, and
state general assistance programs were made eligible to receive
food stamps by virtue of their being recipients of these other
government programs. In 1996, when TANF replaced AFDC as the
U.S. cash welfare program, TANF recipients were also given
categorical eligibility. However, because TANF money could be
used for more than just cash assistance, it was unclear who
constituted a ``TANF recipient.'' In 2000, the USDA issued
regulations regarding TANF categorical eligibility for SNAP
that allows states the option of conferring categorical
eligibility for SNAP on a TANF family if at least one member of
the family receives or is authorized to receive TANF-funded
cash assistance or ``non-assistance.'' \33\ As of January 2012,
only five states restrict categorical eligibility to the
receipt of cash assistance and five states restrict categorical
eligibility to the receipt of cash assistance or specified non-
assistance such as child care. The remaining forty states and
D.C. confer categorical eligibility through the receipt of
either cash assistance or any non-assistance that is provided
using TANF funds, including such minimal elements as pamphlets
describing benefit programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ TANF ``non-assistance' is a category of benefits that was
created to allow states to help low-income families without starting
the clock on TANF's lifetime, 5 year limit on benefits. TANF non-
assistance can go to families with incomes in excess of 185 percent of
poverty or with assets greater than TANF's general limit. non-
assistance can include non-recurrent, lump sum benefits, child care,
transportation and work subsidies, state earned income tax credits, and
counseling.
The SNAP regulations also impose a cap on income eligibility (200
percent of poverty) for SNAP categorical eligibility
established by the receipt of TANF non-assistance under
purposes three and four of TANF (to prevent and reduce the
incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies or to encourage the
formation and maintenance of two-parent families). The SNAP
regulations do not impose an income eligibility cap for TANF
purposes one and two (provide assistance to needy families and
end dependence of needy families by promoting job preparation,
work and marriage), but all states that confer TANF through
non-assistance have instituted one. As of July 2014, twenty-
seven states had gross income caps higher than 130 percent but
not higher than 200 percent of poverty.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Gene Falk and Randy A. Aussenberg, The Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program: Categorical Eligibility (Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Research Service, July 2014), https://www.fas.org/sgp/
crs/misc/R42054.pdf (accessed February 18, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congressional Research Service estimated that, in 2011, about
five percent of all SNAP households had income above 130
percent of poverty.\35\ That is about 1.1 million households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Gene Falk and Randy A. Aussenberg, The Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program: Categorical Eligibility (Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Research Service, July 2014), https://www.fas.org/sgp/
crs/misc/R42054.pdf (accessed February 18, 2015).
Verifying income eligibility only once a year. Prior to
2002, after eligibility was verified, all households were
required to have their earnings recertified every 3 months. For
households with earnings, states had the option of using
``simplified reporting.'' This meant that states could increase
certification periods up to 1 year and households were only
required to report an increase in earnings if it made them no
longer eligible for food stamps. (Income was required to be re-
verified every 6 months.) The Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (``2002 Farm Bill'') gave states the
option to use simplified reporting for all SNAP households, not
just those with earnings. As of November 2012 (the latest data
available), all states except for California used simplified
reporting.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program: State Options Report (Alexandria, VA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, November 2012), http://www.fns.usda.gov/
sites/default/files/10-State_Options.pdf (accessed February 18, 2015).
What impact do lengthening certification periods have on
enrollment and program costs? Maria Hanratty of the University
of Minnesota found that extending certification periods to 6
months and requiring food stamp recipients to report a change
in income during the certification period only if it results in
their income exceeding 130 percent of poverty led to a 9.2
percent increase in food stamp participation between 2001 and
2003 (using the 2001 panel of the SIPP).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Maria Hanratty, ``Has the Food State Program Become More
Accessible? Impacts of Recent Changes in Reporting Requirements and
Asset Eligibility Limits,'' Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
vol. 25, no. 3 (2006): 603-621, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-
bin/fulltext/112651064/PDFSTART (accessed November 14, 2008).
Eligibility for noncitizens. The Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 made
noncitizens ineligible to receive SNAP benefits. The 2002 Farm
Bill restored eligibility to legal noncitizens who (1) have
been in the United States for 5 years, (2) are under age
eighteen, or (3) receive disability benefits.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program: Guidance on Non-Citizen Eligibility (Alexandria,
VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 2011), http://
www.fns.usda.gov/snap/government/pdf/Non-Citizen_Guidance_063011.pdf
(accessed July 13, 2012).
In 2012, the USDA reported that about 1.2 million SNAP households
(about five percent of all SNAP households) had a noncitizen
that received benefits and another 1.3 million SNAP households
(about six percent of all SNAP households) had citizen children
receiving benefits living with a noncitizen, nonrecipient
adult.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Kelsey F. Gray and Esa Eslami, Characteristics of Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012 (Alexandria,
VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 2014), http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf (accessed
February 18, 2015).
Counting less income and allowing more deductions in
calculating net income. To be eligible for SNAP, recipients
must have gross income below 130 percent of the poverty line
and net income below 100 percent of the poverty line. The gross
income requirements are waived for recipients who are
categorically eligible for SNAP benefits. Net income is
calculated by taking gross income and subtracting a number of
deductions: a standard deduction (for ``basic unavoidable
costs''), a 20 percent earnings deduction, a dependent care
deduction, a child support deduction for recipients paying
child support, a shelter deduction, and a medical expenses
deduction for the elderly or disabled. The 2002 and 2008 Farm
Bills (officially the ``Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008'') increased the amount of the standard deduction, removed
the cap of the dependent care deduction, and allowed states to
not require recipients to report changes in their deductions
until their next re-certification.\40\ In 2012, the USDA
reported that SNAP recipients with earned income had an average
monthly gross income of $1,203, but net incomes of only $556, a
difference of $694 dollars.\41\ This has the effect of
increasing the number of eligible households and incentivizing
eligible non-recipient households to enroll to take advantage
of higher benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
``2002 Farm Bill: Section-by-Section Summary of Provisions Affecting
Food Stamp Provisions,'' http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/2002_farm_bill/
food_stamps.html (accessed July 13, 2012); and Dottie Rosenbaum, Food
Stamp Provisions of the Final 2008 Farm Bill (Washington, D.C.: Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 2008), http://www.cbpp.org/cms/
index.cfm?fa=view&id=310 (accessed July 13, 2012).
\41\ Kelsey F. Gray and Esa Eslami, Characteristics of Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012 (Alexandria,
VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 2014), http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf (accessed
February 18, 2015).
Increasing the amount of benefits. The 2008 Farm Bill
increased the minimum monthly SNAP benefits from $10 a month to
``8 percent of the thrifty food plan for a household of one''
for one- and two-person households (about $16 a month in
2012).\42\ The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) increased the maximum benefit amount for each size of
SNAP household by another 13.6 percent.\43\ These increases may
have contributed to the increase in the take-up rate of SNAP
benefit because it substantially increased the amount of SNAP
benefits for eligible households with earnings for whom the
initial benefit otherwise would have represented a negligible
increase in their income. According to a USDA report, the
percentage of eligible individuals receiving SNAP increased
from 54.1 percent in 2002 to 70.8 percent in 2012.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Dottie Rosenbaum, Food Stamp Provisions of the Final 2008 Farm
Bill (Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July
2008), http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=310 (accessed July
13, 2012); and Community Resources Information, ``SNAP Food Stamps:
What Benefits Will I Get?'' http://www.massresources.org/snap-
benefits.html (accessed July 13, 2012).
\43\ Mark Nord and Mark Prell, Food Security Improved Following the
2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefits (Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, April 2011), http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/127913/
err116.pdf (accessed July 13, 2012).
\44\ Kelsey F. Gray and Esa Eslami, Characteristics of Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012 (Alexandria,
VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 2014), http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf (accessed
February 18, 2015).
The maximum benefit increase, however, was designed to be
temporary. The maximum SNAP benefit is based on the Thrifty
Food Plan which is increased annually to account for inflation
in food prices. The ARRA legislation, however, held the new
maximum benefit constant between 2009 and 2013, when it was
projected that inflation would have increased the value of the
Thrifty Food Plan to the maximum benefit level. However,
inflation was less than expected during this period and when
the temporary maximum benefit expired, the maximum benefit
declined by about five percent.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Stacy Dean and Dottie Rosenbaum, SNAP Benefits Will Be Cut for
Nearly All Participants In November 2013 (Washington, D.C.: Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, August 2013), http://www.cbpp.org/cms/
?fa=view&id=3899 (accessed February 23, 2015).
Waived work requirements for able-bodied adults without
dependents (ABAWDs). ARRA also waived the work requirement for
SNAP recipients who are able-bodied adults without dependents
(ABAWDs) who are required to work at least twenty hours per
week, be enrolled in a job training program for twenty hours a
week, or participate in workfare. States were able to extend
this waiver after the initial waiver expired in 2010. Currently
twenty-eight states plus D.C. have waived work requirements for
ABAWDs in 2015.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Randy A. Aussenberg, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP): A Primer on Eligibility and Benefits (Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Research Service, December 2014), http://www.fas.org/sgp/
crs/misc/R42505.pdf (accessed February 23, 2015).
In 2012, the Congressional Research Service estimated that between
2007 and 2010, the number of ABAWDs increased from 1.7 million
to 3.9 million.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Congressional Research Service, FY2007-FY2012: Able-bodied
Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) Requirements, Statistics, and Waivers
(Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, September 2012),
http://www.scribd.com/doc/106346145/CRS-Memo-ABAWD (accessed February
23, 2015).
Five months of transitional benefits regardless of income.
TANF recipients who are leaving welfare for work are eligible
to receive ``transitional SNAP benefits'' even if they no
longer meet the income requirements. The amount of their
benefits is based on the amount they received (or would have
received) in their final month of TANF, adjusted for the loss
in TANF income.\48\ The 2002 Farm Bill extended the number of
months of transitional SNAP benefits from three to five.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means,
Background Material and Data on the Programs within the Jurisdiction of
the Committee on Ways and Means (Washington, D.C.: U.S. House of
Representatives, 2008), http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/media/
pdf/110/food.pdf (accessed July 13, 2012).
Ignoring the income of others in the household. A SNAP
household is defined as ``a group of individuals who live
together and customarily purchase food and prepare meals
together for home consumption.'' \49\ At least some states (and
perhaps most), however, have implemented the definition in a
way that allows for broader eligibility. In Massachusetts, for
example, SNAP applicants self-report their household
composition and state agency verification of household
composition is only required if there is something
``questionable'' about the reported household composition.
Massachusetts also does not require that the households store
food separately from others who live in the house or that they
use separate cooking facilities.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended through Public Law 108-269,
108th Cong., 2d sess. (July 2, 2004), sec. 3(i)(1)(B), http://
agriculture.senate.gov/Legislation/Compilations/FNS/FSA77.pdf (accessed
July 16, 2012).
\50\ Patricia Baker, Deborah Harris, Laura Gallant, Rochelle Hahn,
and Helene Newberg, An Advocate's Guide to the SNAP/Food Stamps/
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Massachusetts (Boston,
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, January 2012), http://
www.masslegalhelp.org/income-benefits/food-stamps-advocacy-guide/
(accessed July 16, 2012).
The WIC program has a similar problem and, in a 2009 report on
this program, I estimated that the failure to count all of the
household's income could, by itself, have expanded the WIC
caseload by about 20 percent.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Douglas J. Besharov and Douglas M. Call, The Expansion of WIC
Eligibility and Enrollment: Good Intentions, Uncontrolled Local
Discretion, and Compliant Federal Officials (College Park, MD: Welfare
Reform Academy, March 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Disincentives
One of the most distressing trends of recent years has been the
decline in labor force participation.
Less job seeking. As of January 2015, the U.S. labor force
participation rate was only about 72.7 percent (compared to its high of
77.4 percent in 1997).\52\ About six million working age Americans (2.5
percent) did not have a job and were not looking for one (even as they
said they wanted one). That takes them out of the ``labor force,'' and,
hence, not officially ``unemployed.'' \53\ Federal Reserve Chairman
Janet Yellen has called this ``shadow unemployment.'' \54\ (See Figure
2, showing participation in the labor force of working-age adults.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ``OECD
Stats Database,'' http://stats.oecd.org/# (accessed August 6, 2014).
\53\ ``Unemployment'' is defined by the Federal Government as being
without a job and also looking for one.
\54\ Rob Garver, ``Yellen Shines a Light on Shadow Unemployment,''
Fiscal Times, June 18, 2014, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/
2014/06/18/Yellen-Shines-Light-Shadow-Unemployment (accessed July 31,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2
U.S. Employment Indicators
2000-2013
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Douglas J. Besharov's calculations from Organisation
of Economic Co-operation and Development ``OECD Stat
Extracts,'' http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx (accessed February
25, 2015).
Another 49.2 million Americans of working age were not actively
looking for a job and, when surveyed, said they did not want a job.
(They answered ``no'' to ``Have you looked for a job in the past 4
weeks?'' and ``Do you currently want a job?''). They explained that
they were disabled or ill, enrolled in school, retired, or taking care
of the house or others.
Some of the declines in employment among working-age Americans
reflect underlying demographic trends. At one end of the working age
spectrum, higher percentages of young people are choosing post-
secondary education (colleges, community colleges, and specialized job
training programs) instead of immediate employment, and, at the other
end, an aging Baby Boom generation is predictably accelerating its exit
from the labor market. (At the same time, there are more elderly who
are working full-time than in the past, presumably because of the asset
losses they experienced during the Great Recession. In fact, between
2000 and 2013, the entire increase in the number of individuals in
full-time employment has been because of the increase among elderly,
those age sixty-five and older, who are working full-time.) \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ``OECD
Stats Database,'' http://stats.oecd.org/# (accessed August 6, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Council of Economic Advisors report estimates the impact of these
demographic factors to be only about 51 percent of the decline in the
labor force participation among all workers (not just working age),\56\
but, given data limitations, the true number is probably lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Council of Economic Advisors, The Labor Force Participation
Rate Since 2007: Causes and Policy Implications (Washington, D.C.:
Council of Economic Advisors, July 2014), http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/docs/labor_force_participation_report.pdf (accessed
August 6, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows how many of the 49.2 million Americans not in the
labor force thought they could not get a job, or were well-enough off
from other sources income (perhaps supplemented with safety-net
benefits). But given the dearth of good-enough-paying jobs, a sense of
palpable discouragement pervades the nation. Many of the long-term
jobless feel left behind by what appear to be permanent changes in the
economy, and have all but given up. It is difficult to exaggerate the
impact of repeated failed job searches. In a 2014 nationwide poll by
Express Employment Professionals, an employment staffing company, 47
percent of the unemployed agreed with the statement: ``I've completely
given up looking for a job.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Express Employment Professionals, Survey Of The Unemployed
Shows 47% Say They Have ``Completely Given Up'' Looking For A Job
(Oklahoma City, OK: Express Employment Professionals, May 2014), http:/
/www.expresspros.com/subsites/AmericaEmployed/Unemployed-Have-Given-Up-
Finding-Job.aspx (accessed June 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worse, the problem seems to be feeding on itself. Many employers
have apparently decided that the long-term jobless would not make good
employees--because of their attitude, skills, or just plain age.\58\
Barring a major increase in demand for American workers--or some change
in their willingness to accept lower-wage employment, many of the long-
term jobless may never get back to work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Rang Ghayad, The Jobless Trap (Boston: Northeastern
University, 2014), http://media.wix.com/ugd/
576e9a_f7ade4b6632949349fd75921699294fa.pdf (accessed August 7, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those directly affected by this weak labor market have paid a high
price in lost earnings and emotional stress, and continue to do so. But
this high level of nonwork is also an obstacle to the economy's long-
term recovery. On June 6, 2014, a Washington Post lead editorial
worried:
Declining labor-force participation may be a new
characteristic of the post-recession U.S. economy, and it bodes
ill for two reasons: The economy's capacity for growth depends
on robust use of all available factors of production, the minds
and hands of U.S. workers very much included; indeed, the surge
of women into the workforce was one of the key drivers of
economic expansion in the 1980s and 1990s. Declining labor-
force participation implies a rising ``dependency ratio'' of
workers to recipients of social assistance.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ``The Number of Jobs Grows, but Not Labor Force
Participation,'' Washington Post, June 6, 2014, http://
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-number-of-jobs-grows-but-not-labor-
force-participation/2014/06/06/aa0ee18a-ed9e-11e3-b84b-
3393a45b80f1_story.html (accessed June 15, 2014).
According to economic theory, a larger supply of potential workers
ordinarily leads to more hiring. The additional job seekers increase
competition for jobs, thus lowering starting wages, which encourages
employers to expand their workforce, which, in turn, raises economic
activity.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ An OECD report explains: ``In the long term, labour demand
responds to increases in effective labour supply. Experiencing higher
effective labour supply, employers may reduce the wages they offer or
they may pay the same wages but enjoy increased productivity--either
way the profitability of new hires is increased and this motivates
employers to create more vacancies.'' Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development, OECD Employment Outlook: 2005 (Paris: OECD,
2006), 178, http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/36780874.pdf (accessed June 12,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, as the same Washington Post editorial suggests, the
billions more now being spent on means-tested, safety-net benefits are
not available for other pressing societal needs. Consider this very
rudimentarily calculated example: If the percent of U.S. households
receiving SNAP had remained the same between 2008 and 2013 (about 10.7
percent), spending on SNAP benefits would have been about $122 billion
lower than the actual amount spent during this 5 year period; adjusting
the base to reflect the increase in poverty still leaves a big $93
billion.\61\ (Of course, some of this money might be spent on less
worthy causes or not at all because other programs might not enjoy the
same level of political support.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Author's calculations from U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Characteristics of Food Stamp Households (Alexandria, VA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 2002-2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-term trends. There is a tendency to blame the labor market's
weaknesses on the economic shocks surrounding the recent Financial
Crisis and subsequent recession. Many experts, however, think that our
current problems have much deeper roots--reflecting long-term, if less
noticed, trends. Major elements of the labor market never recovered
from the 2001 recession (that is why it was called the ``jobless
recovery''), and, actually, some underlying conditions have been
festering for decades. As President Obama, in his 2009 State of the
Union address, pointed out: ``The fact is, our economy did not fall
into decline overnight. Nor did all of our problems begin when the
housing market collapsed or the stock market sank.'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Barack H. Obama, ``Address to Joint Session of Congress,''
(speech, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C., February 24, 2009), http://
www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-
Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress (accessed August 6, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the labor force participation of less-educated men
(both white and black), has been steadily declining since at least the
1970s. Between 1970 and 2000, for example, the labor force
participation of men with a high school diploma declined from 96.3
percent to 86.2 percent (and fell to 79.2 percent in 2012). In the same
period, for men without a high school diploma, their labor force
participation rate declined from 89.3 percent to 74.9 percent (and
declined to 69.7 percent in 2012). Many went onto disability programs
after they left the labor force.\63\ (The enormity of this decline was
obscured because total labor force participation rose as a result of
the massive entry of women into the labor force.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Chinhui Juhn and Simon Potter, ``Changes in Labor Force
Participation in the United States,'' Journal of Economic Perspectives
20, no. 3 (Summer 2006): 27-46, http://www.class.uh.edu/faculty/cjuhn/
Papers/docs/30033665.pdf (accessed August 8, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main reasons for the labor market's long-term weakness are well
accepted: global competition from lower-wage and better-managed workers
in the developing world (especially as U.S. workers seem to be losing
their skills advantage) aggravated by automation (which for the first
time may actually reduce total jobs in the economy, at least good
ones). Most experts also agree that the main remedies are related: a
stronger economy and, to a lesser extent, a better trained U.S.
workforce and a more competitive position in world trade (for example,
by lowering formal and informal trade barriers).
Research on work disincentives. At least since the Income
Maintenance Experiments of the 1960s and 1970s, when a guaranteed
income appeared to decrease work and increase divorce (at least among
some groups),\64\ the role of safety-net benefits as work disincentives
has been heavily researched. Almost all serious scholars have concluded
that they can reduce labor force participation, but with sharp
disagreement about how much they do so. For example, in a 1991 study
for the University of Wisconsin Institute on Poverty, Robert Moffitt
estimated that every dollar transferred to female-headed households
under the old AFDC program reduced the mother's work effort by 37 .\65\
Researchers have attributed at least part of the falling labor force
participation rates for all men, and especially those with less
education, to their declining employment prospects combined with the
relative availability of disability benefits.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Alicia H. Munnell, Lessons from the Income Maintenance
Experiments: An Overview (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution,
1986), https://www.bostonfed.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30a.pdf
(accessed July 31, 2014).
\65\ Robert Moffitt, Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System:
A Review (Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty, 1991), http:/
/www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/sr/pdfs/sr48.pdf (accessed July 22,
2014).
\66\ Chinhui Juhn and Simon Potter, ``Changes in Labor Force
Participation in the United States,'' Journal of Economic Perspectives
20, no. 3 (Summer 2006): 27-46, http://www.class.uh.edu/faculty/cjuhn/
Papers/docs/30033665.pdf (accessed July 16, 2014); and Jane R. Wilkie,
``The Decline in Men's Labor Force Participation and Income and the
Changing of Family Economic Support,'' Journal of Marriage and the
Family 53 (February 1991): 111-122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work discouraging effect of safety-net programs should be
neither surprising or controversial. Their very purpose is to make
getting a new job less urgent. They are supposed to soften the
financial hardships of unemployment, and, thus, to give the unemployed
time to find a good job. This is unquestionably a valid societal goal,
but, at some point, safety-net benefits can become large enough to make
working seem not worthwhile to large numbers of people, at least not
right away. The question is usually not whether the unemployed will
earn as much as their benefits, but, rather, whether they will earn
enough more than their benefits to justify working (taking into
account, on the one hand, the possibility of advancement and, on the
other, of working off the books.)
There is sharp disagreement, however, about the size of these
effects and whether corrective action is needed or even possible--
partly because so much depends on the specifics of the study. To
generalize from a large and conflicting literature, the actual impact
of safety-net benefits on labor force participation depends on a host
of factors, including the size and nature of the benefit, the
participation requirements attached to its receipt, the household's
other sources of income, the recipient's real or perceived job
prospects (and other characteristics), the degree to which it is phased
out or ends suddenly at a specific income (a ``cliff''), and a host of
social and economic contextual factors. (For many low-income
recipients, however, the existence of even minimal income support may
be as important as the implicit tax rate on higher earnings.)
At one extreme, Casey Mulligan, an economist at University of
Chicago, has written:
I found that, among the 23 million layoffs experienced by
non-elderly American household heads and spouses during 2009
and the second half of 2008, at least four million of them
resulted in job acceptance penalty rates near or above 100
percent. . . . meaning that they could be (and perhaps were)
laid off with little or no short-term reduction in their
disposable income even if they had to compensate their employer
for the UI payroll tax liabilities associated with the layoff
as a consequence of ``experience-rated'' UI financing. The
large majority of these workers were in that situation because
of the safety net rule changes implemented by the ARRA.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Casey B. Mulligan, ``Work Incentives, the Recovery Act, and
the Economy,'' (testimony, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee in
Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, D.C., February 14, 2013),
http://www.policyuncertainty.com/app/Mulligan-Testimony.pdf (accessed
February 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Absence of SNAP Work Requirements
As I have described, states are financially and politically
rewarded when they move people off UI and TANF (programs with at least
some activation requirements) and on to SNAP. This incentive was not
created deliberately, but, rather, is a historic accident of how and
when the programs were established.
Although the SNAP program does have some work requirements,\68\ as
Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution and others have noted, ``These
requirements do not seem to be rigorously enforced.'' \69\ The absence
of meaningful job search or work-related activity requirements in SNAP
can undermine UI and TANF work requirements--because SNAP benefits rise
if UI or TANF are terminated or reduced. If the average UI recipient
(in a three-person household) loses benefits, monthly SNAP benefits
rise from about $180 to about $530. If the average TANF recipient (in a
three-person household) loses benefits (about $430 a month), then
monthly SNAP benefits rise from about $400 to about $530 a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ ``With some exceptions, able-bodied adults between 16 and 60
must register for work, accept suitable employment, and take part in an
employment and training program to which they are referred by the SNAP
office. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in
disqualification from the Program.'' U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service, ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program: Employment Requirements,'' http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/
applicant_recipients/employ_require.htm (accessed December 12, 2012).
\69\ Ron Haskins, ``Reflecting on SNAP: Purposes, Spending, and
Potential Savings,'' (testimony, House Subcommittee on Nutrition and
Horticulture, Washington, D.C., May 8, 2012), http://www.brookings.edu/
research/testimony/2012/05/08-snap-haskins (accessed December 12,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is possible to correct this problem. In April 2014, the
University of Maryland and the Secretary's Innovation Group (SIG), with
the assistance of the American Public Human Services Association
(APHSA), cosponsored a 1 day meeting on how to implement the SNAP
pilots authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill in a way that will reduce
dependency and increase work levels. Seven state human services
secretaries attended the meeting as well as about six senior
professional Congressional staff, and about five senior Administration
officials. Through the associated webinar, senior state officials from
thirteen other states participated.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ University of Maryland School of Public Policy, ``Implementing
the SNAP Pilot Projects to Reduce Dependency and Increase Work
Levels,'' http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/foodassist/
SNAP_Webinar.shtml (accessed February 24, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These pilots, the product of an awkward political compromise, may
well point the way to meaningful reform. However, I think the problem
goes deeper. Although the states administer the SNAP program, pay \1/2\
of its administrative costs, and essentially decide who will receive
benefits, they do not pay for any of the benefit costs. Those are
covered entirely by the Federal Government. Hence, they have no
incentive to reduce SNAP caseloads, and, in fact, as we have seen, have
an incentive to shift recipients from their state-funded TANF programs
to the federally-funded SNAP, while keeping the resulting savings and
enjoying the political benefit of a reduced cash welfare caseload. In
contrast, because states can keep the money that they save in TANF,
they are more cautious with spending and focus on limiting the growth
of the caseload.
Real reform probably requires that the states be made financial
partners of the Federal Government. States should have a more direct
financial stake in the proper governance of SNAP programs, including of
eligibility determinations. Given that all program funds come from the
Federal Government, a substantial liberalization of eligibility
determinations was predictable. State officials have little reason to
be cost conscious--as long as program funds seem available. And they
have even less reason to take on ``street-level bureaucrats'' and the
vast discretion they enjoy.\71\ As in the case of many of other
Federal, means-tested programs, states should be required to pay a
portion of SNAP's program costs so that they would have a stake in
enforcing eligibility rules. (Properly structured, this would make it
possible to give states the flexibility to shift how they spend funds--
to spend less on expanding enrollment and more on enhancing services
for current recipients, such as spending more time on job training, job
seeking, and, yes, nutritional counseling.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the
Individual in Public Services (New York: Russell Sage, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Comparisons
Starting in the 1970s, many European countries experienced
similarly worrisome declines in employment and labor force
participation. Across the original fifteen members of the European
Union (EU-15),\72\ between 1970 and 1982, the percentage of the
population employed fell from 61 percent to 57.8 percent (before
beginning a slow increase). For men, the decline was much longer and
steeper, from 83.7 percent in 1970 to 70.5 percent in 1994.\73\ Overall
labor force participation increased during this period, but only
because more women were entering the labor force. At the same time, in
most countries, new highs were reached in the percent of the population
receiving government benefits from unemployment, disability, and social
assistance programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and
the United Kingdom.
\73\ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ``OECD
Stats Database,'' http://stats.oecd.org/# (accessed August 6, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, a growing number of developed countries introduced
policy reforms aimed at ``activating'' the recipients of safety net
benefits who might be able to work, that is, requiring them to perform
work-related activities while receiving benefits. (The U.S. welfare
reforms of the 1990s were an early part of this movement, but since
then, some other developed countries have made more fundamental reforms
to their labor activation policies.) Since the 1990s, one country after
another has modified its safety net programs, as described in this
policy brief. The countries that made the most extensive changes are
Australia, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and,
to a lesser extent, Finland, France, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, and
Sweden. These countries made both substantive changes (tightening
eligibility, limiting the duration of benefit receipt, and mandating
job search and other work-first activities) and administrative changes
(consolidating programs, decentralizing authority, outsourcing
services, and incentivizing systems of financing and
reimbursement).\74\ The key aspects of the changes can be summarized
under three overarching themes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Many, but not all, of these changes were discussed at a joint
University of Maryland/OECD conference titled ``Labour Activation in a
Time of High Unemployment'' held at the OECD headquarters in Paris,
France on November 14-15, 2011.
Synchronizing benefits across safety-net programs to
facilitate seamless benefit receipt over time as well as
activation efforts, so that, as individuals were time-limited
off UI and disability programs, they were transitioned to cash
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
welfare or subsistence programs;
Encouraging work by embedding coordinated activation
requirements, phase outs and time limits on benefits (before
transfers to other programs), and workforce development
services in most major safety-net programs and, when possible,
by reducing high marginal tax rates and other disincentives to
work; and
Decentralizing authority while strengthening accountability
in order to facilitate programmatic innovation and
experimentation within ongoing performance measurement systems,
often operated using performance-based funding mechanisms.
Few of these changes have been rigorously evaluated. Although no
one can say that they have successfully lowered long-term recipiency
and increased labor force participation, the evidence from similar
policies adopted in the past indicates that if, implemented well, they
have the potential to do so.\75\ According to a World Bank report on
labor activation programs: ``One conclusion from a review of existing
evidence is that well-designed policies can have a positive impact on
employment outcomes for participants, but that many existing policies
have in fact failed to prove effective or cost efficient.'' \76\
Moreover, the changes seem to enjoy reasonable political acceptance
from the left and right. If not initially, over time. And they seem to
have maintained the essentials of that nation's safety-net.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See, for example, David Grubb, ``Unemployment Benefits and
Activation as Influences on Labor Market Outcomes,'' (presentation,
Labour Activation in a Time of High Unemployment conference, Paris,
France, November 13, 2011), http://umdcipe.org/conferences/
LaborActivationParis/Papers/David%20Grubb-2011-UBactivation_11_1108.pdf
(accessed June 11, 2012); and Konstantinos Tatsiramos and Jan C. Van
Ours, ``Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Dynamics in Europe,''
(paper, Labour Activation in a Time of High Unemployment conference,
Paris, France, November 13, 2011), http://umdcipe.org/conferences/
LaborActivationParis/Papers/Tatsiramos%20and%20Van%20Ours.pdf (accessed
June 11, 2012).
\76\ Herwig Immervoll, Activation Policies in OECD Countries: An
Overview of Current Approaches (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2012), 8,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/280558-
1334441996287/SPL_Policy_Note_14.pdf (accessed August 8, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence, it is worthwhile to review what these countries have done to
adjust their safety nets to encourage labor force participation at a
time of high joblessness. It is not that their programs should be
simply transplanted here; there are surely too many economic, social,
and political differences for that to be possible, let along make
sense. But just as certainly, the general approaches they adopted are
worthy of consideration.
Our focus in the U.S. should be on rationalizing interactions among
our patchwork of safety-net programs--TANF, SNAP, UI, and disability--
which too often create a work disincentive for low-skilled or difficult
to employ citizens. A possible solution is to combine--or at least
align--the administration of these programs and to add what the
Europeans call ``labor activation'' (akin to job search requirements)
to all recipients of government assistance.
* * * * *
Thank you for this opportunity to share my research and views with
you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Greenstein?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT GREENSTEIN, FOUNDER AND
PRESIDENT, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Mr. Greenstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
inviting me and for the opportunity to be here today. I have
been working on this program for over 40 years, and had the
privilege at one point in the late 1970s of serving as
Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service.
Doug and I agree that SNAP has played the central role in
eliminating severe hunger and malnutrition in this country.
This led former senator, Bob Dole, to call SNAP the nation's
most important social program advance since social security.
And over the years, SNAP has taken advantage of modern
technology and business practice to become more efficient and
accurate.
I don't know if my slides are up. Can I pause for a second?
I thought the slides had been arranged.
The Chairman. Yes, stop his clock.
Mr. Greenstein. What do I need to do? I am sorry. No?
The Chairman. There we go.
Mr. Greenstein. There we go. My apologies. I am sorry. I am
not too gifted technologically.
SNAP's error rate is now at an all-time low. Fewer than one
percent of benefits are issued to ineligible households. The
benefits are relatively modest. They average about $1.40 per
person per meal, and they are highly targeted; 92 percent of
SNAP benefits go to families with monthly income below the
poverty line, 57 percent go to families with income below \1/2\
the poverty line. SNAP can help families bridge periods of
temporary hardship until they get back on their feet.
Between 2008 and 2012, \1/2\ of all new entrants to SNAP
left the program within 1 year, participated for no more than a
year and then left the program. SNAP also appears to have
important long-term effects on children. A recent study found
that children who had received SNAP had much higher high school
graduation rates, and better health, including less obesity in
adulthood, than comparable low-income kids who didn't have
SNAP. And women who had access to SNAP in childhood had higher
earnings and lower rate of welfare receipt in adulthood.
Now, SNAP participation and costs have grown in recent
years. CBO and other analysts have found the biggest reason by
far is the economy, but the next most important reason has been
an increase in the share of eligible families, especially low-
income working families who participate. In 2002, only 43
percent of eligible low-income working families participated.
In 2012, 72 percent did.
Congress in the Bush and Clinton Administrations concluded
that some aspects of SNAP were making it unnecessarily hard for
working-poor families to enroll. They concluded that if
families leaving welfare for low-paid work lost their SNAP
benefits at the same time, and had difficulty feeding their
families, that would be contrary to welfare reform goals. Most
of the policy changes, for example, that Doug listed in his
testimony, that have been made since 2000 were made to better
serve low-income working families. And as this chart indicates,
SNAP has made big progress here. Look at this chart. The share
of families who are on welfare has plummeted. The share who
work has increased pretty dramatically.
Now, this brings me to the biggest cause of SNAP's recent
growth; the deep problems in the economy from which we are only
starting now to make substantial progress. Some people look at
the growth in SNAP caseloads and wonder if they will ever come
down, but the best assessment is that as the economic recovery
finally reaches ordinary families, caseloads and cost will drop
significantly. That is CBO's assessment. Caseloads have dropped
by about 1.5 million people over the last 18 months or so, and
now stand at 46 million. CBO projects they will drop to below
33 million by the end of the decade. And when budget analysts,
whether they are conservative or liberal, ask if Federal
programs are growing in ways that worsen the nation's fiscal
challenges, they ask if program costs are rising as the share
of the economy, growing as the share of GDP.
CBO's projection for SNAP is that its costs will decline as
the share of the economy as the recovery continues, and by
2020, be all of the way back to their 1995 cost level as the
share of GDP.
Finally, does SNAP discourage people from working? The
conclusion of a team of leading researchers who examined all of
the research in the field is that SNAP does not pose
significant work disincentives, and its effect on the amount
that people work is small. And indeed, Census data show that
people--of people who worked before enrolling in SNAP, 96
percent then worked in the year after beginning to get SNAP
benefits, which suggests that turning to SNAP does not lead
people to cease working.
SNAP's work requirements are stronger than is often
realized. SNAP has the toughest work requirement of any Federal
program. People aged 18 to 50 who are not raising children are
limited to 3 months on SNAP out of every 3 years, unless they
are working at least part-time. Job search does not count. If
you can't find a job, you are out after 3 months.
Now, as Mr. Peterson alluded to, this requirement was
suspended in much of the country while the economy was weak,
but it is now coming back. At least one million such people
will be removed from the program between now and the end of
2016. Now, that doesn't mean SNAP can't do better in helping
people gain jobs, and the recent farm bill establishes
demonstration projects from which we should learn to learn how
to do that more effectively.
In conclusion, SNAP is a lifeline for millions of people.
The program can be improved, but it is worth noting that when
the Simpson-Bowles Commission, under the Domenici-Rivlin
deficit reduction taskforce, called for substantial budget
cuts, they both excluded cuts in SNAP, given its strong track
record in improving access to food, and reducing poverty and
hardship for millions of our less fortunate fellow Americans.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Greenstein, Founder and President, Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, D.C.
Thank you for the invitation to testify today. I am Robert
Greenstein, President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a
policy institute in Washington, D.C. that conducts research and
analysis on budget, tax, and economic policy, policies related to
poverty, and a number of social programs. The Center has no government
contracts and accepts no government funds.
I've had a long history of involvement with the nation's food
assistance programs and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) in particular. I had the privilege of serving as special
assistant for food assistance policy to the Secretary of Agriculture in
1977 and 1978 and as Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service at
USDA, which oversees SNAP and other food assistance programs, in 1979
and 1980.
My first invitation to testify before Congress came from this
Committee, for a hearing on food stamps some 40 years ago, in early
1975. It has been a great privilege to work closely with Members of
both parties over the years on food stamps.
My testimony today is divided into three sections: (1) SNAP's track
record; (2) a discussion of program growth; and (3) an assessment of
issues related to SNAP and employment.
I. The Program's Track Record
SNAP has played a central role in largely eliminating severe hunger
and malnutrition in the United States. We often forget how serious
those problems used to be. In the late 1960s, the Field Foundation
sponsored a team of doctors and medical researchers who examined hunger
and malnutrition, especially among poor children, in Appalachia, areas
of the South, and other very poor areas. This research was conducted
before the Food Stamp Program had started in much of the country. The
doctors then returned to the same areas in the late 1970s for another
examination. Their findings from the late 1970s, issued in what became
a famous report, speak for themselves:
In the Mississippi Delta, in the coal fields of Appalachia
and in coastal South Carolina--where visitors 10 years ago
could quickly see large numbers of stunted, apathetic children
with swollen stomachs and the dull eyes and poorly healing
wounds characteristic of malnutrition--such children are not to
be seen in such numbers. Even in areas which did not command
national attention 10 years ago, many poor people now have
food. . . .\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Hunger in America: The Federal Response,'' Field Foundation,
1979.
The medical researchers credited food stamps as being the single
largest factor responsible for this progress, concluding that ``no
program does more to lengthen and strengthen the lives of our people
than the Food Stamp Program.'' 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 and people who are
elderly or have disabilities and can't afford an adequate diet. Recent
studies show that SNAP has a marked effect in reducing what analysts
call ``food insecurity,'' particularly among high-risk children. In
addition, a recent demonstration project in which SNAP benefits were
raised in summer months for families with school children who don't
receive school meals during that time found that the added SNAP
benefits cut by \1/3\ the percentage of children who skipped meals or
otherwise ate less because their families lacked adequate resources.
In important respects, 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 and accurate
(its error rate is at its lowest level on record), while keeping
administrative costs modest. (Some 92 percent of Federal SNAP
expenditures go for benefits to enable households to purchase food.)
While many low-income Americans continue to struggle, this would be a
very different country without SNAP.
An Overview of SNAP
As of the end of 2014, 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. The benefits are relatively modest. SNAP participants receive an
average benefit of $1.42 per person per meal.
Eligible people who apply can receive benefits, and when poverty
and need increase, the program expands. Then when the economy grows
robustly again, the program contracts. This enables SNAP to respond
quickly and effectively during times of economic downturn and increased
need.
Figure 1
SNAP Caseloads Closely Track Changes in Number of Poor and Near-Poor
In millions, through September 2014
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
* Poverty numbers are annual estimates and not yet available
after 2013. Spikes in SNAP participants are from disaster
benefits (i.e., after hurricanes).
Sources: Department of Agriculture (SNAP program
participants); Census Bureau (annual estimates of individuals
below 130% of poverty).
SNAP can respond immediately to help families 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 USDA study of SNAP participation from 2008 to 2012
found that \1/2\ of all new entrants to SNAP participated for 1 year
and then left the program when their need passed.
SNAP's ability to respond quickly to changes in need 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 devastating 2005 hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, SNAP
provided several million people with temporary food assistance.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Kenneth Hanson and Victor Oliveira, ``The 2005 Gulf Coast
Hurricanes' Effect on Food Stamp Program Caseloads and Benefits
Issued,'' Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ERS Report Number 37, February 2007, http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/
200715/err37_reportsummary_1_.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP's caseloads grew in recent years primarily because more
households qualified for SNAP due to the recession and very sluggish
recovery that followed until recently, and also because more of the
households that were eligible applied for assistance. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) has found that ``the primary reason for the
increase in the number of participants was the deep recession . . . and
subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant legislative
expansions of eligibility.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Congressional Budget Office, ``The Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program,'' April 2012, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/
files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This responsiveness in recessions also benefits the economy, by
helping to maintain overall demand for food when the economy falters.
CBO and Moody's Analytics rate SNAP expenditures as one of the most
effective supports for the economy during economic downturns. CBO has
observed that increases in SNAP expenditures during economic slumps
have one of the biggest ``bangs for the buck'' of any of a broad range
of possible fiscal policies for shoring up a weak economy; in other
words, SNAP's expansion in recessions produces some of the largest
increases in economic activity and employment per budgetary dollar
expended.
Also of note is the program's progress in reducing error rates.
Despite the caseload growth of recent years, the program's error rate
has come down steadily and is now at its lowest level on record. Fewer
than one percent of benefits are provided to households that should
have been found ineligible. The overall net loss to the Treasury due to
SNAP errors (which reflects overpayments to households that should have
been found ineligible or that received too large a benefit, minus
underpayments to households given too small a benefit) equaled two
percent in 2013, a very low percentage for a program of its size. (See
the box on page 7 of this testimony for a further discussion of this
issue.)
The National Journal has rated SNAP one of the government's most
successful programs, citing both its responsiveness to people in need
and its low error and fraud rates. The program is a ``case study in
effective government aid,'' National Journal concluded.
SNAP participation and spending have now begun to decline as the
economic recovery has finally begun to reach some low-income SNAP
participants. Fewer people participated in SNAP in each of the last 15
months for which data are available (September 2013 through November
2014) than in the same month 1 year earlier. Some 1.5 million fewer
people participated in SNAP in November 2014 than when participation
peaked in December 2012. I will discuss program growth and cost trends
in more detail later in this testimony.
Targeting Benefits by Need
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, along with its essential expenses such as rent, medicine,
and child care needed to work. Although a family's income is the most
important factor affecting its ability to purchase food, it is not the
only factor; a family whose rent and utility costs consume \2/3\ of its
income will have less money to buy food than a family that has the same
income but receives a rental voucher to cover a portion of its rental
costs.
Figure 2
Two-Fifths of SNAP Households Are Below \1/2\ the Poverty Line
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: USDA household characteristics data, FY 2013.
The program's targeting of benefits adds some complexity. However,
it helps to ensure that SNAP provides the largest levels of assistance
to the poorest families with the greatest needs, and lesser assistance
to those whose level of need is less severe.
Due to this targeting, approximately 92 percent of SNAP benefits go
to households with monthly incomes below the poverty line, and 57
percent go to households with incomes below \1/2\ of the poverty line
(below about $9,895 for a family of three in 2014).
Figure 3
SNAP Cuts Extreme Poverty Almost in \1/2\
Number of households with children, in 2011, living on $2 or less per
person per day
[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.
This targeting of assistance also means that benefits tend to be
higher in areas of the country where wages and public assistance
benefits are lower. This makes SNAP especially important in southern
states and rural areas, where wage rates generally are lower. Federal
expenditures for SNAP benefits generally are higher in southern and
rural states, relative to the size of the state population, than in
other states.
These features help account for SNAP's large impact in reducing
poverty. Census data, using the Supplemental Poverty Measure (which
counts SNAP and other government non-cash benefits as income, as most
analysts believe should be done in measuring poverty), show that SNAP
kept 4.8 million people out of poverty in 2013, including 2.1 million
children, and made millions more less poor. SNAP is also one of the two
most effective programs at lifting children out of deep poverty
(defined as living below \1/2\ of the poverty line).
Also of note is a study conducted by the National Poverty Center at
the University of Michigan, which looked at the number of U.S.
households living on less than $2 per person per day, a standard that
the World Bank uses to measure destitution in third-world countries.
The study found that without SNAP, 1.65 million American families with
children lived on less than $2 per person per day in 2011, but that
SNAP cut this number nearly in \1/2\.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ H. Luke Shaefer and Kathryn Edin, ``Rising Extreme Poverty in
the United States and the Response of Federal Means-Tested Transfer
Programs,'' http://npe.umich.edu/publication/u/2013-06-npe-working-
paper.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact on Health and Self-Sufficiency
Reducing hunger and food insecurity, and lifting people out of
poverty, are important. But the question also arises: what are the
program's longer-term effects?
A recent landmark study, issued by the National Bureau of Economic
Research, sheds light on this question. In this study, several leading
poverty researchers examined what happened when the Federal Government
introduced food stamps in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The
researchers were able to make use of the uneven roll-out of the program
in that period to match poor children who had access to food stamps in
the early 1970s to comparable poor children from counties that hadn't
yet implemented the program. The researchers examined educational,
health, and employment-related records for these children in subsequent
decades in order to assess the long-term effects of food stamps. They
found that adults who had access to food stamps as young children had
an 18 percentage point higher high school graduation rate than the
children who hadn't had access to food stamps. The children with access
to food stamps also had significantly lower rates of ``metabolic
syndrome'' (obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes)
and better health in adulthood. In addition, women who had access to
food stamps as young children had higher earnings and lower rates of
welfare receipt in adulthood.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 4
Children With Access to SNAP Fare Better Years Later
Percentage-point change in outcomes for adults who received SNAP as
children, compared to adults who did not receive SNAP as
children
[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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Error Rates in SNAP
SNAP has one of the most rigorous error measurement systems of any
public benefit program. Each year, states take a statistically
representative sample of SNAP cases (totaling about 50,000 cases
nationally) and investigate the accuracy of their eligibility and
benefit decisions. Federal officials then re-review a subsample of
these cases to ensure the accuracy of the state determinations. States
are subject to fiscal penalties if their error rates are persistently
higher than the national average.
SNAP error rates now stand at record lows. Fewer than one percent of
SNAP benefits are issued to households that do not meet all of the
program's eligibility requirements.
In addition, the program's combined overpayment rate--i.e., the
percentage of SNAP benefit dollars issued to ineligible households plus
the percentage issued to eligible households in excessive amounts--fell
for the seventh consecutive year in 2013 to 2.61 percent. The
underpayment error rate fell to 0.6 percent, with the result that the
net loss to the government from errors was about two percent of
benefits.
In comparison, the Internal Revenue Service estimates a tax
noncompliance rate of 16.9 percent in 2006, the most recent year
studied, representing a $450 billion loss to the Federal Government.
Underreporting of business income alone cost the Federal Government
$122 billion in 2006.
The large majority of SNAP errors result from mistakes by
recipients, eligibility workers, data entry clerks, or computer
programmers (rather than fraud). States have reported that almost 60
percent of the dollar value of overpayments (and almost 90 percent of
the dollar value of underpayments) were the result of state agency
error, rather than due to actions by recipients.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 5
SNAP Error Rates at All-Time Low
Fiscal Years 1990-2013
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Quality Control Branch, U.S. Food and Nutrition
Service.
SNAP and the Budget: Simpson-Bowles, Domenici-Rivlin, and the Gang of
Six
The SNAP program has accomplished a great deal. It also can be
further improved. But it warrants noting that various distinguished
non-partisan or bipartisan groups have all recommended that it not be a
target for budget cuts.
The deficit-reduction commission chaired by former Senator Alan
Simpson and former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles, as well
as the Bipartisan Policy Center panel chaired by former Senator Pete
Domenici and former CBO and OMB director Alice Rivlin, called for
substantial budget cuts, as well as tax reforms to promote growth and
raise revenue. Both commissions excluded cuts in SNAP, given its
importance and its track record in improving access to food and
nutrition and reducing poverty and hardship.
When the Senate's bipartisan Gang of Six developed its framework
for deficit reduction in 2011, it, too, protected SNAP from cuts. In
addition, a diverse group of Christian leaders representing the
Catholic Bishops' Conference, the Episcopal Church, the Salvation Army,
the National Association of Evangelicals, and others has issued a call
for policymakers to safeguard the poor in deficit reduction and to draw
a ``circle of protection'' around programs targeted on them--including
SNAP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Federal SNAP Dollars Go
Some 92 percent of Federal SNAP expenditures goes for benefits to
low-income households for the purchase of food. Of the remaining eight
percent, about five percent is used for the Federal share of state
administrative costs, including conducting eligibility determinations,
operating SNAP employment and training programs, providing nutrition
education to SNAP households, and conducting anti-fraud activities.
About three percent goes 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), and commodities for the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 6
92 Percent of Federal SNAP Spending Is for Benefits
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2014.
II. Program Growth
SNAP participation and costs have grown in recent years. It's
important to understand the causes of these developments and their
implications.
Some have looked at SNAP caseload growth since 2000, along with the
lack of a more dramatic reduction in SNAP caseloads in the past few
years as the unemployment rate has receded, as signifying that
something has fundamentally changed in SNAP--either that the program
has experienced big eligibility expansions or that it no longer becomes
smaller as the economy recovers.
As I'll explain, one needs to scrutinize SNAP data going farther
back than 2000, as well as a broader set of economic measures than just
the unemployment rate, to assess these issues. When one does, one sees
that SNAP has not seen fundamental change that is permanently elevating
its costs.
That is the conclusion of the institution most skilled in analyzing
these issues, the Congressional Budget Office. CBO projects that as the
labor market improves, the number of SNAP participants will steadily
decline, from 46.5 million in Fiscal Year 2014 to 32.8 million by 2025
(the end of CBO's 10 year budget window), when the share of the
population receiving SNAP assistance will be close to its pre-recession
level of about nine percent.
CBO also projects what SNAP and other Federal programs will cost.
People concerned about the nation's long-term fiscal problems--
irrespective of where they sit on the political spectrum--generally
focus on spending, taxes, and deficits measured as a share of the
economy, or GDP. For example, a proposal that many conservatives
favor--to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget each year
and to place a cap on total Federal spending--would set the spending
cap as a percentage of GDP. The core of the nation's fiscal challenge
for future decades is that as the population ages and health care costs
rise, increased spending for Social Security and health care will cause
total Federal spending to rise as a share of GDP while revenues remain
relatively flat as a share of GDP.
Figure 7
SNAP Costs Starting To Fall, Projected To Fall Further
Spending as a share of gross domestic product
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Bureau of Economic
Analysis, and Congressional Budget Office January 2015
baseline.
Accordingly, when analysts ask whether or not a program will
contribute to our long-term fiscal problems, they generally ask whether
it will rise in cost as a share of GDP. And in this regard, CBO's
assessment of SNAP costs is instructive.
SNAP costs began to fall in 2014, and CBO projects that by 2020
SNAP costs will be all of the way back to their mid-1990s level as a
share of GDP. Further, CBO projects no increase in SNAP costs as a
share of GDP after that. By this standard, SNAP is not one of the
causes of our long-term fiscal challenges. This may seem surprising at
first blush, given the increases in SNAP costs and participation. So,
let's review the recent history.
Cost Increases Since 2000
Some have used 2000 as a starting point for looking at SNAP
participation and cost trends and noted the large increases since then.
As in most areas of budgetary analysis, however, the year selected as a
``starting point'' can skew the results, and that is the case here.
SNAP participation and costs were atypically low in 2000 for several
reasons. In the first years after implementation of the 1996 welfare
law, SNAP participation and costs plummeted, in significant part due to
a large decrease in the share of eligible families receiving SNAP. The
1996 welfare law was intended to encourage work. But due to problems in
state administrative systems in the first years of the welfare law,
many families moving from welfare to work and joining the ranks of the
working poor were cut off SNAP when they left welfare, even though they
remained eligible for SNAP.
This was contrary to what Congress intended. Aggravating this
problem, some states instituted administrative practices in those years
that had the unintended effect of making it harder for many working-
poor parents to participate, largely by requiring them to take too much
time off from work for repeated visits to SNAP offices at frequent
intervals, such as every 90 days to reapply for benefits. This prompted
many analysts and state policy officials from across the political
spectrum to call for reforms that would improve access to SNAP for low-
income working families, and led both the Clinton and the Bush
Administrations to act to address this problem. There was bipartisan
consensus that having a policy under which a family needed to be on
welfare to receive food stamps, and faced significant difficulty
receiving food stamp assistance if it left welfare for work at low
wages, would reduce work incentives and was contrary to welfare reform
goals. Congress enacted significant, although relatively modest,
changes in 2002 and 2008 to lessen barriers to SNAP participation among
the working poor.
USDA data show that the percentage of eligible households actually
receiving SNAP benefits fell sharply from 75 percent in 1994 to 54
percent in 2002. Since then, it has rebounded and now stands at 83
percent, the highest participation rate on record. A large share of
this increase in the participation rate is due to the program's
significant improvement in serving the working poor. The percentage of
eligible individuals in low-income working families that receive SNAP
rose by more than \2/3\--from 43 percent in 2002 to about 72 percent in
2012.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The most recent year for which USDA publishes estimates is
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several other factors may also have contributed to the increase in
the participation rate. The widespread and prolonged effects of the
recession--particularly record long-term unemployment--may have made it
more difficult for family members and communities to help people
struggling to make ends meet. Many households that already were poor
became poorer and may have been in greater need of assistance.
In addition, research has found that take-up of SNAP among eligible
households is higher when benefits are larger. The Recovery Act's
temporary SNAP benefit increase, which was in effect through October
2013, may have contributed to higher participation rates.
In essence, two factors have been responsible for the lion's share
of the increase in SNAP participation and costs since 2000: the poor
performance of the economy, to which I'll turn shortly, and the
substantial rebound in the share of eligible households that actually
receive SNAP, following the large drop in the program's participation
rate in the late 1990s.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ From 2009 through 2013, the temporary SNAP benefit increase
enacted as part of the 2009 Recovery Act also contributed to the
increase in costs. The temporary benefit increase ended on October 31,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other factors are small by comparison. On the program eligibility
side, more states adopted ``categorical eligibility'' over the past
decade in order to simplify the program, reduce administrative costs,
and reach low-income working families that incur substantial costs for
items such as child care. But CBO has found that categorical
eligibility accounts for only two percent of program costs. In
addition, while as a result of the weakened economy, most states
qualified for statewide waivers from the provision of SNAP law that
limits unemployed individuals aged 18-50 who aren't raising children to
3 months of SNAP benefits out of every 3 years, those waivers are now
ending in most places. At least one million such individuals will be
removed from the program in 2016.
Finally, the increase in caseloads cannot be explained by increases
in error and fraud. As noted, the program's error rate has declined.
The percentage of benefits provided to households that should have been
found ineligible is now below one percent.
The Role of the Economy
As noted, SNAP participation and costs have begun to decline. Some
1.5 million fewer people received SNAP in November 2014 than in
December 2012.
While SNAP enrollment has begun to recede, however, it hasn't
declined as rapidly as the unemployment rate over the past couple of
years. This has led some to assume there is something unusual or
disturbing going on with the SNAP program. Close examination indicates,
however, that this isn't the case (as CBO's analysis also indicates).
When the economy begins to emerge from downturns, reductions in
poverty--and in SNAP participation--virtually always follow only with a
significant lag. As CBO explained in 2012:
``Even as the unemployment rate began to decline from its
1992, 2003, and 2010 peaks, decreases in [SNAP] participation
typically lagged improvement in the economy by several years.
For example, the number of SNAP participants rose steadily from
about 20 million in the fall of 1989 to more than 27 million in
April 1994--nearly 2 years after the unemployment rate began to
fall and a full 3 years after the official end of the recession
in March 1991.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Congressional Budget Office, ``The Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program,'' April 2012. Two other studies of SNAP rolls
during the Great Recession also found that their patterns have been
consistent with previous economic cycles. Marianne Bitler and Hilary
Hoynes, ``The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same? The
Safety Net and Poverty in the Great Recession,'' National Bureau of
Economic Research, Working Paper 19449, September 2013, http://
www.nber.org/papers/w19449.pdf and Peter Ganong and Jeffrey B. Liebman,
``The Decline, Rebound, and Further Rise in SNAP Enrollment:
Disentangling Business Cycle Fluctuations and Policy Changes,''
National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 19363, August 2013,
http://www.nber.org/papers/w19363.pdf?new_window=1.
When CBO made this observation, it was predicting that the number
of individuals receiving SNAP benefits in Fiscal Year 2015 would be
46.2 million. This is virtually identical to CBO's current estimate of
46.0 million participants for the current fiscal year.
Why should the decline in SNAP participation lag the decline in the
unemployment rate to this extent? The key point here is that the
unemployment rate is an incomplete--and inadequate--measure for
assessing changes in the labor market. As former Federal Reserve chair
Ben Bernanke explained in July 2013, the unemployment rate ``overstates
the health of our labor markets given [labor-force] participation rates
and many other indicators of underemployment and long-term
unemployment.'' An array of other key economic measures that are
relevant to SNAP participation and costs have shown much less
improvement.
While the unemployment rate has fallen considerably, part of
that decline reflects people giving up looking for work and
dropping out of the labor market because they've concluded they
can't find a job. To measure what is actually happening to jobs
and employment, analysts often look directly at the employment
rate (rather than the unemployment rate)--i.e., the share of
people age 16 and over who have a job. After falling from 63
percent in 2007 to 58.4 percent in 2011, the share of people 16
and over with a job has improved only modestly. It stood at
only 59 percent in 2014. To be sure, part of the erosion
reflects the aging of the population. But this figure
highlights the fact that the labor market has not recovered
nearly as much as the decline in the unemployment rate would
suggest. This is the point that Bernanke was making.
In addition, long-term unemployment remains exceptionally
high. In no recession from the end of World War II to 2007 did
the percentage of unemployed workers who were long-term
unemployed workers--people who had been out of work more than 6
months and were still looking for a job--ever exceed 26 percent
of the unemployed. Yet in January 2015, some 31.5 percent of
the nation's nine million unemployed workers were long-term
unemployed. This is especially relevant because the long-term
unemployed are much more likely to have exhausted their assets
and other support--and to qualify for and seek help from SNAP--
than workers unemployed for shorter stretches.
On a related front, the number of unemployed workers not
receiving unemployment benefits--the group of the unemployed
that is most likely to qualify for SNAP because they have
neither wages nor unemployment insurance (UI) benefits--has
continued to grow and was actually higher in 2014 than at the
bottom of the recession. There were an average of 14.3 million
unemployed workers in 2009, of whom 5.1 million didn't receive
UI benefits. By 2014, the number of unemployed had fallen to
9.6 million--but 6.9 million were without UI benefits--35
percent more than in 2009, when the economy was at its lowest
point.
This reflects the end of Federal unemployment benefits for the
long-term unemployed as well as cuts in state unemployment
benefits in a number of states. Today, fewer than three in ten
(27 percent) of unemployed workers receive unemployment
benefits. This is the lowest level on record (with data back to
1971).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Claire McKenna, ``The Job Ahead: Advancing Opportunity for
Unemployed Workers,'' National Employment Law Project, February 2015,
http://www.nelp.org/page/-/UI/Report-The-Job-Ahead-Advancing-
Opportunity-Unemployed-Workers.pdf?nocdn=1.
Another important factor is that the share of workers who
want to work full time but can only find part-time work neared
historic highs during the recession and remains elevated today.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' most comprehensive alternative
unemployment rate measure, which includes people who are
working part time because they cannot find full-time jobs and
people who want to work but aren't actually looking, stood at
11.3 percent in January--2.5 percentage points higher than at
the start of the recession. By this measure, about 18 million
people are unemployed or underemployed, twice the 9.0 million
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
people in the official unemployment measure.
These disappointing labor-market realities also are reflected in
data on poverty. In 2013, the most recent year for which official
poverty data are available, 45 million people were poor. This was eight
million more than in 2007 (before the recession) and 1.7 million more
than in 2009 (when the economy hit bottom).
A final important economic factor is the erosion of wages at the
low end of the wage scale. Between 1973 and 2013, the share of male
workers who earn below-poverty hourly wages (i.e., wages too low to
lift a family of four to the poverty line with full-time, year-round
work), rose from 17 percent to 24 percent. Looking just at a more
recent period, the wages that workers at the 10th percentile of the
wage distribution received in the last quarter of 2014 were three
percent below the 2009 levels, after adjusting for inflation; wages at
the 25th percentile of the wage distribution were five percent below
the 2009 level.
The erosion of the minimum wage has played a role here. The current
wage floor of $7.25 an hour is 24 percent below the peak value in the
late 1960s, after adjusting for inflation. While the minimum wage
equaled about \1/2\ the average hourly wage of private non-supervisory
workers in the 1950s and 1960s, it now equals 35 percent of this
average wage. The Council of Economic Advisers estimates that
increasing the value of the minimum wage in 2014 to its real average
value in 1979 would have directly increased wages for the lowest eight
percent of wage earners.
The point here is that a substantial share of formerly unemployed
workers continue to qualify for SNAP when they find jobs because their
wages are low. (And as noted, SNAP does a much better job than it used
to of serving eligible working-poor families; a larger share of such
families now participate in the program.)
The erosion of wages for low-paid work is one of the reasons that
the proportion of SNAP recipients who are working while receiving SNAP
has substantially increased. More than \1/2\ of families with children
that receive SNAP have earnings while they are receiving SNAP benefits.
This percentage continued to grow even during the recession.
This leads to a larger observation. Developments in the economy--
and policy decisions made in other policy areas outside SNAP and the
purview of this Committee--have a significant bearing on SNAP
participation and costs. When real wages erode at the bottom of the
wage scale, the minimum wage is frozen for an extended period of time
while prices rise, or state governments reduce the number of weeks or
the amount of unemployment benefits, SNAP participation and costs
increase.
A similar dynamic operates on the housing front. When the number of
poor households that pay more than \1/2\ of their income for rent and
utilities rises (due to rents rising faster than incomes, reductions in
Federal housing assistance, or the like), more poor households qualify
for the SNAP program's excess shelter deduction. This raises their SNAP
benefit so they can afford both to feed their families and pay the
rent. Between 2003 and 2013, the number of low-income households paying
more than \1/2\ of their income for rent and utilities soared from 4.7
million to 7.5 million--an increase of nearly 60 percent.
As noted, the number of SNAP recipients is expected to continue
declining as the economic recovery more fully takes hold for lower-
income workers. In addition, while the SNAP ``participation rate''--the
percentage of eligible households that receive benefits--is now at its
highest level on record, it may decline somewhat in the years ahead.
Research shows that SNAP participation rates are higher for households
that qualify for larger benefits. Researchers believe that the
temporary increase in the SNAP benefit level enacted as part of the
Recovery Act led to an increase in the SNAP participation rate--and
that with the end of the benefit increase, the participation rate will
likely decline somewhat over time.
III. SNAP and Employment
One of the most significant changes in SNAP in recent decades has
been its transformation from principally a welfare supplement program
to principally a work support program. As Figure 8 shows, in 1990, 60
percent of SNAP households with children received cash welfare
assistance and had no earnings, while about 25 percent had earnings
from employment. By 2013 (the latest year for which these data are
available), only 11 percent received welfare and lacked earnings, while
52 percent worked and had earnings.
Figure 8
Working Households on the Rise
Share of SNAP households with children by type of income
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: CBPP Tabulations of SNAP Quality Control Data.
This is a dramatic change. Among SNAP families with children, there
used to be about 2\1/2\ times more families receiving welfare and not
having earnings than there were working families. Now, there are nearly
five times as many working families as non-working families receiving
welfare cash assistance.
To be sure, a substantial share of SNAP households still lack
earnings while on SNAP, though this percentage is lower than it used to
be. But this needs to be understood in context. Research has shown that
losing a job is the most common event that leads new participants to
enroll in SNAP. Households that experienced a job loss were 63 percent
more likely to seek SNAP than low-income families that didn't
experience a job loss.
Figure 9
SNAP Households With Working-Age Non-Disabled Adults Have High Work
Rates
Work participation for households that received SNAP in a typical month
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: CBPP calculations based on 2004 SIPP Panel data.
If a household loses its job and enrolls in SNAP, and then leaves
the program when it lands a new job, the program data will show the
household as being jobless while on SNAP. But the household will have
maintained a strong attachment to the labor force, and SNAP will have
done its job in helping the family put food on the table until it could
get back on its feet.
Accordingly, to understand the program's connection to work, we
need to understand the degree to which SNAP participants work before
and after going on SNAP, not just their work status while they are
receiving benefits. Among SNAP households with a working-age adult who
isn't disabled, more than \1/2\ work while receiving SNAP, and more
than 80 percent work in the year before or after a typical month
receiving SNAP. The rates are higher for families with children--more
than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and 87 percent work in the
prior or subsequent year.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The figures are based on data from the Survey of Income and
Program Participation (SIPP) for the mid-2000s, but preliminary
analysis finds that they declined only modestly during the recession.
Preliminary analysis of SIPP data for 2008-2010 finds that among non-
disabled working-wage SNAP households, the percentage that worked in
the year before or after a typical month of SNAP receipt edged down by
only three percentage points, from 82 percent to 79 percent, despite
the sharp rise in unemployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of particular note, among households that worked before enrolling
in SNAP, 96 percent worked in the year after starting to receive SNAP;
only four percent did not. This suggests that turning to SNAP does not
lead people to cease working or trying to work.
Indeed, the number of SNAP households that have earnings while
participating in SNAP more than tripled between 2000 and 2013, from
about two million to about 7.1 million. The increase continued even
during the recession, which suggests that more people have been turning
to SNAP because of low wages or underemployment (for example, when one
wage-earner in a two-parent family loses a job, when a worker's work
hours are cut, or when a worker turns to a lower-paying job after being
laid off). During the recession, the number and share of SNAP
households with earnings increased even as the overall number of
Americans who are employed declined and the number of long-term
unemployed swelled.
These data are consistent with the leading academic research in the
field, which finds that SNAP does not have significant work
disincentive effects. A comprehensive review and synthesis of the
research literature that examined the behavioral effects of an array of
safety-net programs, including SNAP, and was conducted by some of the
field's leading scholars and published by the National Bureau of
Economic Research, found SNAP's overall impact on work to be small.
This doesn't mean, however, that SNAP couldn't do better in helping
participants that lack jobs to secure them--a topic to which I will
return shortly.
Figure 10
Nearly All Households That Worked Before Receiving SNAP Continued
Working
Work participation in year after starting to receive SNAP among
households that worked in prior year
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: CBPP calculations based on 2004 SIPP Panel data.
How Long Do People Stay on SNAP?
One set of data that can help illuminate these issues, but can also
engender confusion, concern how long participants remain on SNAP. The
implications that's often drawn is that if people stay on a program for
very long periods of time, the program may not be appropriately
connecting them to the labor market.
As analysts know, the issue of how long participants remain on SNAP
(or any other program) is complicated and often misunderstood. An
analogy to a hospital room helps to explain why--and is crucial to
understanding SNAP caseload dynamics.
Consider a hospital room with two beds. Over a 30 day period, one
bed is occupied by the same person throughout. The other bed is
occupied by five different people who have short hospital stays and
then leave. If you ask what share of those who are patients in the
hospital room on any given day are ``long stayers,'' the answer is 50
percent (one of the two people then in the room). But if you ask what
share of all patients over the course of the month were long stayers,
the answer is 16 percent--one in six.
That is precisely what the SNAP rolls are like. The most recent
study of SNAP caseload dynamics found that of all people who entered
the program between 2008 and 2012, some 26 percent left the program
within 4 months, 52 percent left within 12 months, and 67 percent left
within 24 months. For families with children, the typical (or median)
spell on SNAP was 12 months. For elderly people living alone, by
contrast, the median length of time on the program was more than 51
months.
These data show that most people going on SNAP who are not elderly
or disabled do not remain on the program continuously for extended
periods of time. (Some do return when they encounter subsequent
financial hard times and then leave the program again.)
But at the same time, if you take the SNAP caseload in a given
month and ask what is the typical length of stay on the program of
those participating in that particular month, the answer is more than 5
years. This is the equivalent of asking what share of the hospital beds
in our hypothetical hospital room were occupied by a long stayer on a
given day.
Finally, data on the length of stay on the program cannot, by
themselves, yield sufficient information on the relationship of SNAP to
employment. As noted earlier, with the erosion of wages on the low end
of the pay scale, especially for male workers with no more than a high
school education, people can work at low wage jobs for a number of
years and remain eligible for SNAP throughout that time.
The SNAP Employment and Training Program
People sometimes ask if SNAP has work requirements. It does, and
they are stronger than people often realize. In fact, for childless
adults, they are the most stringent of any Federal program. People aged
18 to 50 who are not raising minor children may receive SNAP benefits
for only 3 months (while they are not employed at least \1/2\ time) out
of every 3 years, even if they have looked diligently for work but
cannot find it.
When the amendment establishing this requirement was offered on the
House floor in 1996, its sponsors said that if a SNAP recipient
couldn't find a job on his or her own, the individual would be provided
a workfare slot and only those refusing to do workfare would be cut off
after 3 months. In most places, however, the workfare (or other
qualifying work) slots were never created. Currently only five states
operate the requirement this way. In the rest, people who do not find a
job on their own in 3 months are cut off, regardless of how hard they
may be looking for work.
I have also heard this requirement mistakenly described as one that
cuts off benefits after 3 months for people who won't search for a job,
but that isn't accurate. Job search does not count under the
requirement.
In my view, job search ought to count. I also believe that people
who cannot find a job should be offered a work or training slot--and
cut off SNAP if they refuse to take it--rather than being cut off
because no slot has been offered to them. The people who are subject to
this 3 month benefit limit have average income of only 19 percent of
the poverty line (about $2,200 a year) and typically don't receive any
other income or nutrition support.
In recent years, this requirement has largely been suspended in
many states; the provision enacted in 1996 authorized states to obtain
temporary waivers of this requirement during periods when the economy
is weak and unemployment is elevated, and most have done so statewide
in recent years. As noted earlier, most states will no longer qualify
for those statewide waivers as their local unemployment rates improve.
At least one million individuals will lose food assistance in 2016 as a
result of this requirement.
Turning to SNAP participants who have children, SNAP work rules and
requirements essentially complement those in the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families block grant, the program established under the 1996
welfare law. The 1996 law gave states options to impose tough SNAP
sanctions on TANF households who fail to comply with TANF work or other
behavioral requirements. This includes the termination of SNAP benefits
for the entire family for up to 6 months (unless the family has a child
under age 6).
States use this flexibility to design and augment the force of
their TANF work and behavioral requirements. States also operate SNAP
employment and training (E&T) programs for SNAP participants who are
not subject to work requirements in TANF or other programs, and states
can and do impose SNAP benefit sanctions on participants who fail to
comply with SNAP employment and training program rules.
USDA data show that between 70,000 and 100,000 people live in a
household where an individual's SNAP benefits have been terminated for
failure to meet a work requirement. This number is an understatement;
these data do not include households where the entire household has
been removed from the program for not meeting a work requirement.
The SNAP program does, however, have a weakness in this area: due
to limited funding, the SNAP employment and training program is able to
provide work or training slots for only a relatively modest portion of
SNAP recipients who lack employment and aren't enrolled in, or subject
to, another work program or another set of work requirements such as
those under TANF.
Another weakness is that SNAP employment and training programs have
not been especially effective at placing participants in private-sector
jobs or helping them gain skills that would enhance their ability to
find and retain jobs. The SNAP E&T program isn't unique here. A number
of employment and training programs have mixed or disappointing track
records.
Fortunately, there is now hope for improvement here. The 2014 Farm
Bill created a major demonstration project under which up to ten states
will test innovative employment and training strategies, with a
rigorous, independent evaluation being conducted of the effects on
employment, earnings, and other factors. We currently have limited
knowledge about what strategies are successful in increasing employment
among SNAP participants, and these pilots should provide valuable
information on how the SNAP employment and training program can better
serve SNAP participants to achieve desired results.
USDA will shortly announce the states selected for the
demonstration, and I hope and expect that a broad range of approaches
will be tested. I would urge policymakers on both side of the aisle to
let the demonstration run its course and not rush to make big changes
in SNAP employment and training rules before we have the results. The
last several decades have seen a number of Congressional efforts to
improve other Federal employment and training programs without the type
of knowledge that these demonstrations should yield. Despite good
intentions, such earlier efforts to improve employment and training
programs have often yielded disappointing results. We need this time to
be different, and that entails being patient until the demonstration
results are in, and then applying them.
There is, however, another hopeful opportunity in which I urge the
Committee to become involved. Historically, the job training programs
funded and operated under the Workforce Investment Act have largely
bypassed SNAP participants, focusing instead on people who already
possess job experience and skills. (A GAO study found that SNAP E&T
participants generally have limited education--they often aren't high
school graduates--and limited job skills.) Fortunately, the bipartisan
Workforce Investment Act reauthorization Congress that enacted last
year calls for these training programs to orient more to disadvantaged
individuals. The new law also encourages state workforce agencies to
collaborate more closely with state SNAP E&T programs, and it includes
an option for states to submit a combined workforce plan that includes
programs like SNAP E&T. Connecting SNAP participants to a broader range
of employment and training services should allow more of these
individuals to gain the skills needed to find employment, with positive
effects both for these individuals and for SNAP costs (which will be
lower if more participants secure jobs). I would recommend that the
Committee work to make sure that this promising aspect of the new job
training law is realized in practice. To this end, a review of how the
Department of Labor and local workforce boards are expanding job
training options for SNAP participants under the new law would be
worthwhile.
Finally, in thinking about SNAP and employment, I would urge the
Committee to weigh the effects of various policies not only on
employment among adults currently on SNAP, but also on the future
employment prospects of children in families that receive SNAP. As
noted earlier, research suggests that when poor families with children
receive SNAP while the children are young, the children (especially
girls) are more likely to be employed and not on welfare as adults.
This suggests that care should be taken to protect children's access to
the important nutritional assistance that SNAP provides.
IV. A Final Thought on Strengthening Program Integrity
I understand the Committee will be undertaking a comprehensive
review of SNAP over the next year. I would recommend that as part of
this oversight, the Committee consider ways to facilitate greater use
of data matching to further strengthen program integrity and improve
client service through improved efficiencies. There may be
opportunities to enhance this aspect of program operations across the
country.One issue to explore is how to provide more SNAP caseworkers
with strong capacity to access data in real time when working with
clients and determining and renewing eligibility or processing reported
changes in household income. Several states--such as Utah, Washington,
and Idaho--have developed special tools that help their eligibility
workers conduct data matches across a wide range of state and Federal
databases, such as Motor Vehicles, State Vital Statistics, the Social
Security Administration, Child Support, Unemployment Insurance, state
tax records, consumer credit checks, and other commercial databases.
These databases help states verify the income and other eligibility
factors a household reports, and can do so without asking clients to
take time off from work for repeated visits to food stamp offices to
provide documents. And with ready access to information to verify
clients' statements, caseworkers can take immediate action as needed
(without waiting for clients to turn in paper verification to the local
office and for that paperwork to make its way to the caseworkers days
or even weeks later). In addition, ready access to third-party data can
help to detect instances where households may not have reported
information accurately. The matches occur nearly instantaneously and
help detect both inadvertent mistakes and fraud. But not all states
currently use tools such as these.
Similarly, some states pay (with the support of Federal matching
funds) a private company, Equifax, for access to employment and wage
records. Employers with large numbers of low-wage workers often prefer
to have a third party handle government inquiries regarding their
employees' wages and hours. State SNAP agencies report that when their
case workers are able to easily access income information for
applicants and participants, that increases accuracy and reduces
paperwork burdens on both participants and employers. The Committee may
wish to explore whether access to these private third-party data is
something the program can and should provide to all states. The Federal
Government, for example, now provides such data to state Medicaid
programs through the Federal data hub.
Another interesting data matching option that could increase
program accuracy while reducing paperwork is using state wage records
to verify the income of SNAP participants and applicants. Currently, a
few states, including Texas, are testing this approach via a waiver.
This mode of verifying income is not typically used because SNAP
requires that applicants verify their income using current records, and
state wage data often are a number of months old. As result, state wage
records can't be used to definitively determine a child's current
income (although states can use it to retroactively test the veracity
of client information). Under the waiver, Texas is testing the
targeting of this verification method for participants with steady
employment and earnings. If it proves accurate, it may represent a way
to reduce paperwork burdens for both applicants and state SNAP staff.
Helping states share these tools and innovations with other
states--including exploring ways that the Federal Government might
establish or procure IT solutions that all states can use to strengthen
program integrity, increase efficiencies and improve customer service,
instead of requiring each of the 50 states to individually research the
terrain--could be considered, given the Federal dollars at stake. The
Committee could look into whether there are opportunities to remove
barriers to states' adoption of such systems or to incentivize more
states to implement them.
V. Conclusion
The Agriculture Committee is undertaking a close look at SNAP. I
hope the results of this work lead the program to become still more
effective.
In so doing, I hope the Committee will keep in mind the
accomplishments the program has made and proceed with appropriate
caution. The well-being of millions of vulnerable Americans is at
stake. I would urge that the Committee adopt the Bowles-Simpson
principle of protecting the disadvantaged and avoiding measures that
would increase hunger, poverty and hardship in a nation as abundant as
ours. Thank you.
PowerPoint Presentation
SNAP Error Rates at All-Time Low
Fiscal Years 1990-2013
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Quality Control Branch, Food and Nutrition Service.
Children With Access To SNAP Fare Better Years Later
Percentage-point change in outcomes for adults who received SNAP as
children, compared to adults who did not receive SNAP as
children
[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.
Working Households on the Rise
Share of SNAP households with children by type of income
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: CBPP Tabulations of SNAP Quality Control Data.
SNAP Costs Starting To Fall, Projected To Fall Further
Spending as a share of gross domestic product
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Bureau of Economic
Analysis, and Congressional Budget Office January 2015
baseline.
Nearly All Households That Worked Before Receiving SNAP Continued
Working
Work participation in year after starting to receive SNAP among
households that worked in prior year
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: CBPP calculations based on 2004 SIPP Panel data.
SNAP Caseloads Closely Track Changes in Number of Poor and Near-Poor
In millions, through September 2014
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
* Poverty numbers are annual estimates and not yet available
after 2013. Spikes in SNAP participants are from disaster
benefits (i.e., after hurricanes).
Sources: Department of Agriculture (SNAP program
participants); Census Bureau (annual estimates of individuals
below 130% of poverty).
The Chairman. Well, thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate you
being here again.
The chair would remind Members that they will be recognized
for questioning in order of seniority for Members who were at
the start of the hearing. After that, Members will be
recognized in order of arrival. And I appreciate everybody's
understanding for that.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Besharov, can you help me better understand how an
anti-hunger program from the 1960's became the primary income
support program in the United States today? From your
description of the past, it appears that SNAP has undergone
incremental changes in order to get to this current position.
Mr. Besharov. Yes, sir, I can, and part of it is laid out
in my----
The Chairman. Your microphone is not on, I don't think.
Mr. Besharov. Excuse me. Yes, I can, and part of it is laid
out in my testimony, and part of it was reflected in what Bob
said as well.
In the 1940s to the 1970s, African-Americans were
systematically excluded from welfare in large parts of the
country. Partly, this was through the unfit home rule, the man-
in-the-household rules, and so forth. The result was, as we
became a less agrarian society, the result was people left the
land and hunger and starvation grew. The response from the
Federal Government was to step in and to provide a feeding
program, and it built on the original food stamp program which
we had created and then abandoned in the 1930's. That original
program, designed as it was to get around the rules in the
southern states, did a number of things that now come back to
haunt us. One was, it had a separate measure of income from
welfare, AFDC in those days. The result was every dollar less
in welfare generated between 30 and 40 more in food stamps.
I was in New York State at the time. We had Nelson
Rockefeller as our governor, a relatively liberal Republican.
His response to the passage of the universal food stamp program
was to recommend a reduction in AFDC payments because the state
had to pay 50 percent for them, whereas food stamps would be a
100 percent Federal. So states like New York and California cut
back their AFDC programs to rely more on their SNAP or food
stamps programs. It was pure arithmetic.
Then came welfare reform, and under welfare reform, the
states had a very large incentive to reduce their caseloads.
Every dollar they saved, they kept.
I have read it in Bob's testimony, this is a problem in the
way TANF was implemented, but totally expected. If you push
someone off TANF because of a work requirement, and they can
still get food stamps--in those days food stamps--and still get
Medicaid, maybe still get housing, you have blunted the work
requirement, but you have also created an alternate path to
public assistance. And that is why some on the right call the
new SNAP program Welfare 2.0, because it has grown to be a very
large welfare-like program.
I know this is a lengthy answer. My last part of this is,
come the Great Recession, and states were extremely hesitant to
put people on TANF, plus a substantial amount of unemployment
in the recession was male-dominated. For the first 18 months,
the majority of the people who lost jobs were men. Married men.
Those families, often with two earners in their households,
wouldn't qualify for TANF anyway, but when a husband's earnings
went down, whether or not his wife was also working, if they
had two children, there was a tendency for them to be eligible
for SNAP. So SNAP went up when the UI benefits ran out. It--
this is the interaction that on the left you say, hey, this is
terrific, this is exactly what we want. And in Bob's testimony
he talks about it as a countercyclical program. It surely is,
but we haven't fixed the wrinkles, and the wrinkles are that
the result is no real work requirement, serious questions about
the fairness of eligibility determinations, and serious
questions about what to do in the future.
This is a lengthy answer to say we now have a new welfare
program. It is called SNAP. It still fills an important
nutritional need for people at the very bottom of the income
level, but at higher levels, it is income support and we ought
to treat it that way.
The Chairman. Thank you, gentleman.
The Ranking Member is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peterson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think I know the answer to this but I want to get it on
the record. I don't know of anybody that designs a system where
one entity decides who qualifies and the other entity pays for
it; that is a recipe for disaster.
Over the course of the debate on the farm bill, we made the
change in LIHEAP, and at the time I had said that I thought
when it came down to it, the states would decide to go from
paying $1 a year to $20 a year so they could still qualify
people. And some of them did but some of them actually didn't.
The question is, if we made a change in SNAP, or if a
change was made in SNAP, so that costs above 130 percent of
poverty, the state would pay 50 percent, and the Federal would
pay 50 percent,'' what do you think would happen?
Mr. Greenstein. I think there are a couple of parts to the
answer. You raised the issue of LIHEAP and there is a remedy,
but I don't think the remedy is having states pay 50 percent
above 130 percent of poverty.
Mr. Peterson. I am just wondering what do you think would
happen if that----
Mr. Greenstein. Well, different states would make different
decisions, and part of the whole essence of this program, going
back to President Nixon, was that prior to President Nixon,
each state set its own eligibility standards. We had some
states eliminating working families when their incomes reached
only 50 percent of the poverty line. Other states did it very
differently. And there is real importance in having national
eligibility standards. For example, it lessens the disparity
between low wage areas and high wage areas. That is why SNAP
benefits actually are disproportionately greater in rural areas
and in southern states.
On the LIHEAP issue, the issue there, in my view, is that
LIHEAP is supposed to help families that have significant--low
income families that have significant heating bills they
otherwise have difficulty affording. And the remedy is within
the LIHEAP program, which certainly is under the purview of
Congress, not particularly this Committee but your fellow
Members, and LIHEAP could be modified to make clear that it is
not to provide benefits to people who don't incur heating
costs.
There are a relatively small number of states that are
doing what you suggested, but there still are a few, but that
could be handled through appropriate targeting of the LIHEAP
program. But I would caution on the other side. You know, you
have----
Mr. Peterson. I was just wondering----
Mr. Greenstein. Well, let me--I want to give you a key
example.
Yes. Only one in six low income families that is eligible
for childcare assistance gets it because we have limited
funding in the programs for childcare. So we have two families;
one of them has income at 110 percent of the poverty line and
they get a childcare subsidy. The other has income at 138
percent of the poverty line and doesn't get a childcare
subsidy, they pay out-of-pocket so it can work. The second
family may actually end up with less money for food than the
first family. So the reason that some states have used
categorical eligibility, when you look at who they have helped
through categorical eligibility, 90 percent of the families are
working families. The typical focus of those families is they
pay more than \1/2\ their income for either childcare or rent,
and do not get a childcare subsidy and do not get housing
assistance. So we need to be careful in how we calibrate those
eligibility standards.
Mr. Peterson. Professor?
Mr. Besharov. If you believe that that business firm, if it
could find people to hire, would strengthen the local economy,
and I do, then you can understand why governors, conservative,
liberal, Republicans, Democrats, when they look at their
political imperative, it is to get their state economy
``growing again.''
I think the answer to your question, sir, is that, subject
to the lessons from TANF implementation, the states would jump
at the opportunity to try to raise the labor force
participation of people on SNAP assistance, and they would do
it not just by having a different amount, they would do it
through job training, they would do it through a job search,
and as I say, subject to the lessons of TANF, which we should
take to heart.
Mr. Peterson. So you believe they would reduce the----
Mr. Besharov. I was at a meeting of 20 state secretaries,
and I said why do you want to reform food stamps? You don't pay
for it. And they said we worry about the well-being of our
states. They would jump at the chance. They would take the
offer--many states would take the offer and experiment with it.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Thompson from Pennsylvania, 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
gentlemen, for your testimony, it is very helpful, very
insightful on this important topic.
I certainly like the concept of taking programs like SNAP
and taking them from what we have traditionally called, and
some have categorized them different ways, taking the programs
but making them into workforce development programs, which come
with more hope and opportunity.
And so my question for both of you, do we even know what
works in terms of solid evidence-based research to help folks
who are--find themselves, families in low income situations,
low income work, and help them work and earn more and leave
poverty. And more specifically, does the current SNAP program
do that?
Mr. Besharov. Let me start, but I will try to be brief so
that Bob has some time.
The history of job training in this country is very
disappointing. In match-up after match-up under TANF and before
that, AFDC, job training versus job search never did better.
That is to say, people who were asked to look for a job
immediately tended to get a job much sooner, although there is
an argument about whether they got better jobs or not than
people who received job training.
I think partly that is because the job training programs
weren't given a full opportunity to do what they needed to do.
The last Congress reauthorized the Workforce Investment Act,
now called Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act, and many
people have a great deal of hope in that. There are also now
very promising programs that try to direct unemployed or
underemployed people into jobs that exist. The left and right
seem to think that those kinds of programs hold great promise,
and the answer is that if we took the job training and
education more seriously in SNAP, we would see some progress.
Mr. Greenstein. I think there are several aspects to this.
First, when we talk about helping people work, we want to think
not only about current adults who are unemployed, but what is
the trajectory for poor children. Are they going to grow up as
part of the workforce or not.
Now, here there is growing evidence that in families that
are very poor, children's brains are already behind by age 2,
farther by age 5, before they start school, and that benefits
such as SNAP help reduce that. So the evidence is pretty strong
now that particularly for young children, having access to SNAP
benefits increases the likelihood that they will have earnings
in adulthood.
In terms of the current adults, Doug mentioned that there
isn't really a work requirement in SNAP. I would really have to
disagree with that. As we noted, 3 months out of 3 years for
single individuals. For families with kids, if they are
sanctioned for not meeting a work requirement in TANF, the food
stamp law, the 1996 Welfare Law, explicitly says that states
can then cut their SNAP benefits as well, and most states do.
The data show we have 70,000 to 100,000 households on the
program, where one or more members of the household have had
their benefits taken away for not meeting a work requirement in
another program. And that doesn't count the additional tens of
thousands of households who have been removed from SNAP
altogether for not meeting a requirement in another program.
But the real issue, as you have said, is what do we do to
help these people work. As Doug indicated, old research
suggested that for those people who were the most employable,
pushing them to search for a job can help. The difficulty is
that many people on SNAP aren't that employable right now. They
lack even a high school diploma in some cases. Generally, they
lack more than a high school education. And old-style job
training programs often weren't as effective. What we are now
learning is that if we can do more vocational training, more
training that is really tied to what the employers in the local
area really need, we can get some more success. A problem, and
this is a recommendation I would like to make for this
Committee, a problem is that up until now, our main job
training system, the Workforce Investment Act System, didn't
serve SNAP recipients much at all. It served people who already
were more skilled. Then it could show higher rates of
placement. And local workforce boards didn't like serving most
SNAP participants because they had too few skills to begin
with.
On a bipartisan basis, Congress reauthorized the Workforce
Investment Act last year, and said it should orient towards
more disadvantaged workers with fewer skills, and it gave local
boards the option to coordinate more with SNAP.
So I would really urge this Committee to work with the
Committee, I guess it is Education and the Workforce, and to
really do oversight. We really need this to become a reality.
We have some billions of dollars in the workforce training
system, and it was largely bypassing SNAP recipients. We have
an opportunity with these reforms to have it start serving SNAP
recipients and give them more job training, but we really need
to make sure that gets implemented that way on the ground.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Scott for 5 minutes.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to first of all paint a picture of SNAP so
that we all are operating with a clear and jaundiced eye. First
of all, these are the facts. Thirty-seven percent of all food
stamp recipients are white people. Twenty-three percent are
African-American. Ten percent are Hispanic. And this is
according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Census
data indicate that 900,000 veterans receive food stamps each
month, and this figure is understated because the Census data
do not consider homeless veterans receiving SNAP benefits.
I want to paint the picture as clearly as we can. Feed Our
Vets, a nonprofit group that establishes food pantries for
veterans, has estimated that nearly three million veterans and
their families don't get enough food to eat each month. And
finally, 45.3 percent of all of those who are on SNAP are
children. That is 17 million children in the United States; one
out of every five lived in households in this country that are
food-insecure.
And so I want to ask you all a simple question. First of
all, in view of the realistic image of the food problem, in the
wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, why is this?
And as we talk about the problems, we need to put a direct line
on how we get to some solutions to address the need, the need.
So if each of you might just tell me what you feel is the
number one abuse, because in a hearing, we have to get to that
as well. I want your feelings on that. Where do you feel there
is any abuse? Where would that be? What is the number one abuse
to the food stamp program? Mr. Greenstein.
Mr. Greenstein. I think you are suggesting I go first,
which I am happy to do.
Mr. Besharov. We are just taking turns.
Mr. Greenstein. I would note, Mr. Scott, your figure of
900,000 veterans getting assistance is the figure for any given
month?
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes.
Mr. Greenstein. And over the course of a year, 1.7 million
veterans get SNAP assistance at some point over the course of
the year.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. And that is understated because
the Census data does not identify the homeless vets that are
growing.
Mr. Greenstein. Yes. Yes, the homeless are not fully picked
up, you are absolutely right, in the Census data.
In terms of abuse, this is not atypical of other programs.
We have some people in great need who, due to various issues in
the program, complexities, whatever, still don't get served.
And on the other side, even though the error rate is very, very
low, it could be brought lower. In section 4 of my testimony, I
won't go into the technical issues here, we have some proposals
for how the Federal Government could help states make greater
use of wage matching as information technology advances. And
this could have a double benefit. It could actually help both
of the things I just mentioned. It could lower errors by
enabling case workers in real time, as they are doing
eligibility determination, to match into more income data and
find if there is something questionable in what the recipient
reported. By the same token, it would relieve recipients of
having to go back and forth, and back and forth, and keep
bringing more documents, and keep coming back to the office,
sometimes taking time off from work where they lose wages to do
it, because the greater wage matching would provide income
information that they wouldn't need to ask people to bring the
documents for. So it could help both ease a barrier to
participation, particularly for some of the working poor, we
still have a lot of eligible working poor families that don't
get SNAP, and it could reduce the error rate at the same time.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gibbs for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Besharov, I have been studying your Figure 1
chart and looking at that, and you had made the point about
SNAP has become an income support, and lack of coordination
between different agencies. I see in the Senate Budget
Committee they released a CRS memo that there are 80 welfare
programs run by numerous different agencies. So I look at your
Figure 1 chart, and you talk about cost shifting, obviously,
there is probably a lack of coordination. I think you said
that. And then I am also thinking, I see that UI and the
unemployed persons dropped. TANF was dropped a little bit but
it was kind of flat. And SNAP, in your chart, the numbers
increased significantly.
How much--because of low income jobs, people got work but
this economy has a lot of hard-working people out there
haven't, they have been forced to part-time jobs and have low
income jobs, how much of that would be a factor do you think in
this. And then my follow-up question on that, because I don't
really know, when a person does get a job and they go off
unemployment stuff, can food stamps be prorated then, do they
get different amounts, how much of an adjustment would there
be?
Mr. Besharov. As Bob said, one of the problems about
understanding the food stamp program is the rules get pretty
complicated. One thing about when people have more income, what
becomes implicated is the certification rule, which is when a
person has to report an increase in earnings and so forth. And
if we had more time, I would go into why I think it is a
mistake to let people stay on without reporting increases in
income. That is the rule. It was established to save state
efforts and expenses, while the Feds paid for benefits. But to
go right to your question, no one really knows what leads a 50
year old person, male or female, not to go back to work, not to
look for work. And people who try to parse that out and say,
``Well, it is because there aren't enough jobs or maybe it is
because he or she wants to take care of a relative.'' I don't
know what the percentages are. To answer the question about
what is the biggest abuse, and it is related to your question,
it is we don't have a system in place for SNAP that takes into
account the human vicissitudes of what happens when you give me
money, and in return, all I have to do is tell you I am low
income. That is a mistake. I think that is a mistake whether it
is SNAP, TANF, disability or whatever.
Mr. Gibbs. So you are saying the certification process is
very flawed.
Mr. Besharov. It is flawed because we saved state
governments money by doing it less frequently. Part of Bob's
presentation, the reason why I think the--and Bob may disagree,
one reason why we have more accurate determinations is we have
made compliance easier. We have lowered the bar. I think that
is part of it.
But I do think the largest problem here is engaging this
program in the life course needs of the recipients, and not
just treating it as a program that deals with hunger. That is
important, but that is in the past.
Mr. Greenstein. Well, excuse me. As Doug said, I do
disagree with his last comment. So what happened around 2000?
On a bipartisan basis, Congress and a number of analysts looked
at the program and found that the share of eligible working
poor families who were participating was very low. And when
they looked further, what they found was that states were so
concerned about being charged with an error, if somebody worked
a couple of hours of overtime and they didn't have it
immediately in the data, that states were requiring working
poor families, not welfare families but working poor families,
to come back into the office every 90 days to provide all of
their documents. That usually took two visits, an average of 5
hours. Most people in low wage jobs, your employer doesn't pay
you while you take 5 hours off from work. There was really a
sense that if we were serious about work, and if people get
paid low wages that still leave them in poverty, then we need
to have a system that enables them to use the program. And the
solution, which was a bipartisan solution every bit of the way,
was that we would require people, when their earnings went up
and put them over the income limit, to immediately report, but
that we wouldn't bring them back every 90 days to go through
every day that was lost to sick leave, or every hour of
overtime. And that was really the purpose of the change in the
program, and it was a positive change.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Fudge for 5 minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
both for your testimony today.
Mr. Greenstein, one of the things that I must agree with
you on is, I sit on the Education and the Workforce Committee,
as well, and you are absolutely correct that the WIOA Bill was
written to discourage boards from actually trying to place
those who are hard to place, whether they are low skilled or
low income, or live in high poverty areas or have limited
education. That is the way the bill was written, because the
way that the rating process goes, they rate them by how many
people they place. So clearly, they try to place those people
who are easy to place. So I just wanted to----
Mr. Greenstein. Right.
Ms. Fudge.--reaffirm that.
My first question is, I hear a lot that, since the
unemployment rate has gone down significantly, why has SNAP not
gone down in a similar rate, and why is there a lag between
those two things?
Mr. Greenstein. So CBO has noted for a number of years that
when you come out of a recession, there normally is a
significant lag of several years between when unemployment
comes down and when poverty comes down, and accordingly, when
SNAP comes down. But in this recovery, this is particularly
true for several reasons. The group of the unemployed who are
most likely to be eligible and participate in SNAP are the
long-term unemployed; people who have been out of work more
than 6 months, still looking for a job, exhaust their assets.
There are a couple of really stunning statistics here. In
every recession from World War II through 2007, there never
were more than 26 percent of the unemployed who were long-term
unemployed. Today, 31 percent of the unemployed are long-term
unemployed. They are more likely to be eligible. Here is an
even more amazing statistic. You will think this can't be right
when I first say it. The number of unemployed who are not
receiving unemployment benefits is larger today than at the
bottom of the recession when the unemployment rate was ten
percent. At that point in time, we had about 14 million
unemployed; nine million received unemployment benefits, five
million didn't. Today we have about nine million unemployed,
down from 14, but unemployment benefits have shrunk and we have
6.9 million people, nearly two million more than at the bottom
of the recession, not getting unemployment benefits. They have
a higher rate of receipt.
We also have the fact that wages have eroded, particularly
for male workers in the bottom of the wage scale. And so a
number of people who have left unemployment for low wage jobs,
maybe lower than they had before the recession, they are no
longer unemployed, but they are still eligible for SNAP because
their wages are low. So all of these are factors, and it is
part of the reason that Ben Bernanke has said that the
unemployment rate right now is not a very good measure by
itself of the economy. It makes it look like we have recovered
more than we really have.
Mr. Besharov. If I could just add 10 seconds to that. And
that is----
Ms. Fudge. All right, 10 seconds.
Mr. Besharov. Yes. That is why this program is just like
unemployment. We ought to treat it that way.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you. Mr. Greenstein, another question. I
think that people say they are discouraged from working because
they receive SNAP. Can you tell us how much people get on SNAP?
The amount is so small, it could not discourage anybody from
wanting to work. What are those numbers?
Mr. Greenstein. Well, the average benefit is $1.42 per
person, per meal. An Institute of Medicine study has raised
questions actually about whether it is adequate. Many people
run out of food stamp benefits, SNAP benefits, before the end
of the month. But I also want to note that there has been
academic research on this question of whether SNAP discourages
people from working. I had mentioned in my oral testimony that
the leading academic research in the field finds there isn't a
strong effect there. There also was testimony before the Senate
Finance Committee a year or 2 ago--year or so ago from one of
the nation's leading conservative economists, Robert Hall, who
is at Stanford and at the Hoover Institution, and he said the
data do not seem to support the view that the social safety net
is discouraging labor force participation. Participation by
those in low income families has generally risen, not fallen.
The group for whom we have the biggest concern about the
decline in labor force participation are low income, low
skilled, single men, and they are the very people for whom we
have the 3 month out of 3 rule--3 month out of 3 year rule in
the SNAP program.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back her time.
Mr. Benishek for 5 minutes.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have two different answers for the--and I am listening to
these questions, and Mr. Besharov and Mr. Greenstein seem to
contradict each other about the requirement to work. So could
you explain to me, is there a wavier--I thought there was a
waiver for the requirement to work in place now. Mr. Besharov,
can you give me a short answer to that, and going back to Mr.--
--
Mr. Besharov. I think it is 30 states that have a waiver
for the work requirement, 3-0. Bob? And that is for ABAWDs, and
the requirement or----
Mr. Benishek. So those 30 states have no requirement to
work?
Mr. Besharov. That is correct.
Mr. Benishek. So then, Mr. Greenstein, you are telling us
that is not the case; that there is very strict requirements to
work. That is what your testimony was, it seems to me.
Mr. Greenstein. Let me explain. I think this is one of the
most misunderstood parts of SNAP. In 1996, this requirement----
Mr. Benishek. So what I want to know, is Mr. Besharov not
telling me the truth? There is not a waiver in place, that
states do not require the work benefit?
Mr. Greenstein. Well, as I explained in my testimony, there
are waivers that have resulted from the high unemployment, and
they are gradually expiring.
Mr. Benishek. But are there 30 states that require waivers
then for the----
Mr. Greenstein. I don't recall. It is about 30. It might
be----
Mr. Benishek. So then 30 states have no work requirement,
is that accurate?
Mr. Greenstein. Not--no, that is not correct.
Mr. Benishek. Well, then how is it--what is it--tell me
exactly what the waiver means then if it is not a work
requirement.
Mr. Greenstein. Well----
Mr. Benishek. I am just trying to figure this out myself.
Mr. Greenstein. First off, the key point is the waiver is
only with relationship to these single adults----
Mr. Benishek. Right.
Mr. Greenstein.--not raising children. Number 2----
Mr. Benishek. Right.
Mr. Greenstein.--these are not permanent waivers. They are
time-limited waivers and they are expiring. And by 2016, very
few states, single digits, 1, 2, 3, will have any potential to
have statewide waivers, let----
Mr. Benishek. All right, I appreciate it.
Mr. Greenstein. That is why one million people are going to
be removed from the program as the waivers expire and the work
requirement is----
Mr. Benishek. Okay.
Mr. Greenstein.--reinstated.
Mr. Benishek. All right, thank you. I appreciate that
clarification. You agree with that clarification, Mr. Besharov?
Mr. Besharov. Yes, except I am not sure whether the waivers
won't be extended under whatever conditions.
Mr. Benishek. I see. Okay. Well, then I want to go on----
Mr. Greenstein. They can't be----
Mr. Benishek. I want to go on though to another question,
and that was the duplication--and I am just trying to figure
this out, 80 separate programs run by a dozen agencies,
according to the CRS, from the Senate Budget Committee, how do
we better coordinate the aid to people that need aid? Mr.
Besharov, can you----
Mr. Besharov. Well----
Mr. Benishek.--give me more of your time?
Mr. Besharov.--there--I am your guest here. Let me say that
part of the problem is on this Hill.
Mr. Benishek. Well, how do we do it?
Mr. Besharov. Yes. There are a number of committees that
jealously guard their jurisdiction. I sat in on a Housing
hearing once where they wanted to increase the size of a Head
Start Program, but instead of putting the money in the Head
Start budget, they created a separate program under housing for
Head Start.
Part of this happens through the committee process. There
have been attempts since Elliot Richardson was Secretary of
HHS, to integrate these programs. Those on the left fear, based
on experience, that if you combine them into a block grant that
total spending will go down. Those on the right perhaps want
the total spending to go down, but they argue that putting all
that money in one program creates efficiencies that more than
make up for whatever potential loss all those separate programs
have. The fact is there is a tremendous amount of waste in
these programs. They often work at counter purposes.
Mr. Benishek. Mr. Greenstein, do you have any comment? How
do we make it----
Mr. Greenstein. Well----
Mr. Benishek. How do we make it more efficient? How do we
eliminate 80 different programs and try to achieve a better
result?
Mr. Greenstein. Well, a lot of the 80 programs are very
small programs that only serve very, very small percentages of
low income families. When you talk about----
Mr. Benishek. Do you think we should eliminate those
programs then?
Mr. Greenstein. Well, they may be very important for
certain very particular groups; children with certain kinds of
very serious service problems that need a particular service.
There are a much smaller number of large programs. I think
states are making progress using information technology and
coordinating them better, but we can do more than that. For
example, in the field of Medicaid and so forth, HHS has set up
this Federal data hub that bring together lots of databases for
wage matching purposes to improve accuracy, but a lot of states
don't have ready access to it for SNAP. They should. That was
one of the recommendations in my testimony is to better
integrate things like access to databases for----
Mr. Benishek. All right.
Mr. Greenstein.--wage matching of----
Mr. Benishek. I am out of time, Mr. Greenstein. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. McGovern, 5 minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Besharov and Mr. Greenstein, for testifying today.
Today's hearing is described as the start of a top-to-
bottom review of SNAP, and I am certainly a proponent of
rigorous oversight of all programs, but I have to say at the
beginning, I find it a little bit curious that we seem to be
singling out SNAP for review, especially at a time when the
most recent CBO projections show that SNAP caseloads and
spending is moving in a downward direction, and CBO also says
that payments to farmers could be nearly $5 billion more than
was originally expected in the farm bill. I don't know why we
are not beginning with the top-to-bottom review of that. But, I
appreciate you being here, and I hope, if we are going to do a
top-to-bottom review, that we also at some point have a panel
of beneficiaries, people who are on the program, who can
testify firsthand what works and what doesn't work, and maybe
we should also have someone from the FNS here as well because
they administer the program. I hope that this is not going to
be an exercise in another attack against poor people because I
fear I have seen this movie before, and I didn't like it the
first time.
Mr. Besharov, in your written testimony, you spent a good
deal of time questioning the idea whether food insecurity is a
real problem in this country. Let me assure you it is. I have
been to public schools in my district where kids fear snow days
because they won't be fed if they go home. I have been to
hospitals and talked to doctors who have treated senior
citizens who don't have enough money for their prescriptions
and their food, and take their prescriptions on an empty
stomach and end up in the emergency room. I have been to
hospitals when I have been told by doctors or pediatricians
that kids end up being admitted for what we would call a common
cold because their nutritional intake is so poor that their
immune system is compromised. So I view this program as
essential to making sure that people don't go hungry, and good
nutrition is also essential for people to have a healthy life.
Two-thirds of SNAP recipients are not expected to work.
They are children, they are senior citizens, and they are the
disabled. I don't know how tougher work requirements help them.
That is the majority of people on the program.
And I would like to ask you both about eligibility
determinations. It is tough to qualify for this program. This
is not a slam-dunk. If I want it, it is pretty tough. And the
other issue is the fact--it was raised by Mr. Gibbs. The
discussion really needs to be on this cliff that people hit
when people go back into the workforce and all of a sudden they
lose their daycare benefits, and their food stamp allocation
gets reduced, and then they find themselves in the same
predicament that they were before; empty shelves. And so, yes,
the economy is improving, but we are leaving behind a lot of
low and middle income workers.
And let me just say this about the waivers: Republican
governors as well as Democratic governors did that, and they
did it not because they were trying to cheat the system, but
they did it because they actually realize that without the
waiver, that there would be many people who they represent who
would be worse off, who would go hungry.
And finally, Mr. Greenstein, you mentioned this in your
testimony. We have had commissions in recent years, the Bowles-
Simpson Commission, it was a bipartisan commission, and then we
had a Bipartisan Policy Center taskforce chaired by Pete
Domenici and Alice Rivlin. When I think of Alan Simpson and
Pete Domenici, I don't necessarily think of bleeding hearts,
but in their recommendations they recommend we don't touch this
program.
So I have said a few things here, but I am happy to have
your comment.
Mr. Besharov. Well, let me just make it quick because I
know Bob wants to answer about that.
Mr. McGovern. All right.
Mr. Besharov. If this is a feeding program, and if we are
worried about food insecurity, instead of letting the
eligibility and the income of the average recipient creep up,
we would do something to reduce the upward creep and increase
the benefits at the bottom. If it is $1.20 a meal, and that is
not enough, there are two ways to fix that. One is raise the
cost for everyone in the program. The second is----
Mr. McGovern. I am happy to work with you to increase the
benefit because it is inadequate.
Mr. Besharov. I will see you any time you want.
Mr. Greenstein. Something like only one percent of benefits
go to households with gross incomes over about 130 percent of
poverty.
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Mr. Greenstein. But I want to get back to the work
requirement issue because there has been a lot of discussion of
it. It should be understood that the 3 month provision we are
all talking about as a work requirement really is not a work
requirement. It is a time limit, 3 months out of 3 years.
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Mr. Greenstein. If it were a work requirement, we would say
you have to search for a job. If you don't, you are out. Here
is a workfare slot. If you don't take it, you are out.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Rodney Davis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to my
colleagues for beginning to review and address this very
important issue, and it is good to point out that 80 percent of
the farm bill that we just reauthorized is the SNAP program. So
I want to commend Chairman Conaway for starting with a review
of programs in the farm bill that make up 80 percent of it. I
think it is a great start, and I am glad this Committee is
working in a bipartisan way to do this today.
I know there has been a lot of discussion about the waiver
process, and Mr. Benishek, my colleague from Michigan,
clarified some of these issues, and I would like to actually
begin by expanding on some of those questions.
Mr. Greenstein, are all the waivers you are talking about,
do they expire at the same time?
Mr. Greenstein. No, but I think a lot of them--I think the
lion's share of them, if I remember correctly, and if this is
incorrect, I'll get back to your office with more information.
I think the lion's share of them expire at the end of 2015.
Some expire earlier. But I do want to be very clear that the
waiver is a waiver of the 3 months and you are out rule. When
the rule was established on the House floor in 1996, the author
of it said here is what we are saying. If you can't find a job
in 3 months, we give you a workfare slot, and if you take it
your benefits continue. But 45 of the 50 states never created
the workfare slot. So what it has turned into is if you can't
find a job on your own in 3 months, you are out. I think that
people should be offered a job slot. I think they should be
allowed to search for a job, and if they show they have been
diligently searching, they shouldn't be out after 3 months. So
what some of the states with waivers have done is they have
waived the 3 month limit, but they have required these people
to search for jobs anyway.
So if one is looking at this whole area, it may be worth
looking at how the entire provision works, and I would
recommend converting it from a time limit into a true work
requirement.
Mr. Davis. Okay, thank you very much.
And, Mr. Besharov, Mr. Greenstein mentioned that he
expected maybe three states to possibly still reapply, and you
mentioned in your comments to Mr. Benishek that you would
expect some of these states whose waivers may be expiring, at
whatever time they may expire, may ask the Federal Government
and the Administration once again to approve another waiver.
What metrics need to be met for the Administration to actually
approve these waivers?
Mr. Besharov. That is trick question, sir.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. I didn't know that.
Mr. Besharov. Because many people think that the
Administration doesn't need a metric to issue a waiver, so I
don't think I want to go there. I just want to make one point
in relation to this work requirement, and what happened in
1996. The job slots would have been 50 percent state
expenditure, right? The job slots would be--and it is an
administrative cost. So the offer was: is after 3 months, if
you put a SNAP recipient into a job, we will provide 50 percent
of the cost, but if you leave that recipient either on SNAP or
he or she goes off assistance entirely, it is not a cost to
you. So to me, the issue here to implement this is not the
details of these provisions, but to get the incentives for the
states right. If we want the states to provide nutritional
education, if we want them to provide job training, then the
formula has to incentivize them to do that in a situation
where, right now, 100 percent of program costs are not state
costs, they are Federal costs, and that is a giant incentive to
look for any reason to either keep people on SNAP, or get them
off and provide no services to them.
Mr. Greenstein. Let me clarify. There are very detailed
Federal rules and metrics on what does and doesn't qualify for
a waiver. They were not set by the Obama Administration, they
have been the same rules that were in place under the George W.
Bush Administration.
Mr. Davis. So it wasn't a trick question.
Mr. Greenstein. And I also want to clarify that when I said
only maybe three states would meet them, that is on a statewide
basis. There will continue to be individual areas, there could
be Indian reservations or others where unemployment rates might
still be 10 or 15 percent, isolated areas, even after the
economy is better. So some individual localities, states could
still get a waiver for, but in terms of the statewide waivers
that they have had in recent years, except for few, if any,
states, those will end.
Mr. Davis. Well, I see that my time has expired, and my
next question I am not going to be able to ask until the next
round----
The Chairman. The gentleman's----
Mr. Davis.--so thank you.
The Chairman.--time has expired.
Ms. DelBene for 5 minutes.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to both of
our witnesses for being with us today so we can talk about this
very, very important issue and program.
Mr. Greenstein, you mentioned in your testimony that we had
in the farm bill an employment and training pilot program
combined with our Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
that we call SNAP Employment and Training. This is a pilot that
I introduced based on some work that we have done in Washington
State on basic food employment and training that has been a
very successful program in our state. In one study, less than
\1/2\ of the participants remained on government assistance 2
years after starting the program. We have 60 percent of those
enrolled in the program were able to find employment
afterwards, and if we are talking about helping people get back
on their feet, this is a key goal.
I wondered if you can talk a little bit more about how
programs like this might be able to help save money in the long
run by helping people get back to self-sufficiency, and also
make sure that those enrolled in nutrition programs are given
opportunities as well to get back into the workforce, or to
seek other job opportunities that help them to take care of
themselves and their families.
Mr. Greenstein. Yes, I think these demonstration projects
are quite important. We have had mixed records over the years
in terms of other kinds of employment-related programs. I think
as one of your colleagues noted, I think Congresswoman Fudge,
that too often training programs out across the country, not
SNAP ones but others, have focused on the people who already
had the most job experience and the most skills, and were the
easiest to place. Often they were people who would have found
jobs on their own anyway, even without a training program, but
the training program then got to check the box that someone
went through their program and got into a slot. And what we
really need to do better about is providing the skills for the
people who have the least skills and the least education to
enable them to get in and stay in the labor market, and a lot
of the people who are on SNAP who are unemployed fall into that
category.
It is not as though we know here are the two or three
cookie cutter things to do. So the purpose of these
demonstration projects is to test a wide variety of proposals,
and my understanding is states have submitted----
Ms. DelBene. Yes, in fact, we had the Secretary of
Agriculture here and he said that the beginning of March, we
would be hearing on some of the--on what their decision was----
Mr. Greenstein.--a wide variety of proposals.
Ms. DelBene.--on the proposal.
Mr. Greenstein. Yes. My understanding is they are about to
announce very shortly the pilots, and I had one conversation
with Secretary Vilsack a month or 2 ago in which I said that my
recommendation was pick an array of projects.
Ms. DelBene. Yes.
Mr. Greenstein. Pick some from very conservative states,
not as conservative, do a range so we can learn, test a variety
of things, and he said back to me that that was exactly what he
planned to do.
Ms. DelBene. That is great. I want to get back to an issue
we have been talking about, a few folks have brought up, and I
know that you wrote a recent paper highlighting that one
million people will be coming off of SNAP by the end of 2016
due to fewer states being eligible for waivers, and more
individuals being subject to the time limit. As you know,
Congress passed a provision that requires those who can work to
find a job, or enroll in a state training program or workforce
program, in order to receive more than 3 months of SNAP
benefits. Unfortunately, Congress didn't require the states to
offer an opportunity, as we have talked about, to participate
in a job training or workfare or workfare program. Washington
State is eligible for, and is currently using, the statewide
waiver for Fiscal Year 2015. I am an original cosponsor of a
piece of legislation called the SNAP Work Opportunity Act, and
it was introduced this week. This bill would help prevent those
one million Americans from losing eligibility by only letting
the work requirement apply to those actually offered a job
training or workfare opportunity. And I wanted to know what you
think of a piece of legislation like that in terms of helping
us address this issue, and making sure that we really focus on
our goal, which is helping people get back in the workforce.
Mr. Besharov. I think legislation like that or of its ilk
is extremely important because it does reflect the nature of
the caseload now, but I want to emphasize what I said before
because the states were ready before the SNAP pilots. They were
ready to accept the requirement to do things if they got
financial benefit.
Ms. DelBene. Yes, I want to let Mr. Greenstein also
respond.
The Chairman. Well, the gentlelady's time has expired, and
to be respectful for the other Members, there will be a second
round if you want to----
Ms. DelBene. Thank you.
The Chairman.--do that. Mr. Crawford for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I
appreciate you being here this morning.
And, Mr. Besharov, if you would, I want to talk about what
success looks like. What does it mean for a program to work?
Are we talking about what is the proper definition of a program
working? Are we talking about short run financial improvement
of a situation for a recipient, or are we taking a longer view,
are we looking at the ability of an individual to help
themselves over the long-term, or is it something else?
Mr. Besharov. I think mostly the latter. My answer would be
as follows, and I want to try to be brief so that Bob can say
something as well if he wants. My answer would have been
different 10 years ago than it is today. Ten years ago, the
American economy was a situation in which unemployment spells
tended to be short, people tended to, if they lost their job,
go out and find a job. As Bob mentioned, as my testimony
mentions, we have something like 30 percent of the unemployed
now have been unemployed for more than 6 months. We are facing
international competition where our low skilled workers, except
for the ones in jobs that can't be moved abroad, are losing
income. So suddenly, our safety net programs are being asked to
do much more than they used to do.
So I would say that a successful safety net program, or a
successful SNAP program balances the need to provide long-term
support for those who are going to be left behind, with a
friendly, helpful, tougher nudge into the labor force. So the
two have to go together. Please don't hear me saying benefits
should stop, that nothing should happen. But the other side of
that is, as benefits continue, we have to nudge people, we have
to prepare them for the labor force.
A successful program, to me, does both of those things.
Mr. Greenstein. If I could add, as my testimony indicated,
SNAP has become much, much, much less than it was, say, 20
years ago of a wealth supplement program. Doesn't really do
much of that anymore. And much more of a work and wage
supplement program. As Doug just mentioned, international
competition, other factors, wages have eroded for low skill
jobs. If you look at the data, something like 17 percent of
male workers 20 years ago or so received an hourly wage that,
if you worked full-time year-round, would not be enough to lift
a family of four to the poverty line. Today, 24 percent of male
workers get a wage that low. The minimum wage is much lower in
purchasing power than it used to be. All of these things make
SNAP more important for working poor families, for people
working for low wages. It also means it used to be that if you
left unemployment and you got a job, you wouldn't be on SNAP,
but with lower wages, a number of people get a job and they
still don't earn enough to make ends meet, and they qualify for
SNAP.
I think we also have to think about the program in the
context of an economy that has changed due to international
competition, all kinds of factors, globalization, whatever. We
have a significantly larger share of people making lower wages,
and needing SNAP to help with their wages, be able to feed
their family and still pay the rent and so forth.
Mr. Crawford. In general, would you think, Mr. Besharov, as
a professor of public policy, that policymakers tend to be
reactive versus proactive, and if you agree with that
statement, what would you advise to take a more proactive
posture, and bring that into the context of SNAP?
Mr. Besharov. Well, this hearing is a good example of a
proactive step. As a number of people have mentioned,
reauthorization is far away, and thinking about this problem,
this program now is very important in my opinion. It is
important both because of its current situation. I am not sure
I buy the CBO estimates. What I am very worried about is the
future bumps in our economy. When you look at what is keeping
us afloat, it is the Fed and cheap money from abroad. It is not
as if we are out of these woods at all. So proactive is being
ready for the next bump. And getting this program ready for the
next bump in the economy, it seems to me, is extremely
important. And that is not being reactive, it is being ready
for the next tragedy that hits us.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has--yields back.
Ms. Plaskett for 5 minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking
Member.
I first wanted to take a moment to talk about how important
SNAP is, and other services in the food and social services
safety net for the people where I live in the Virgin Islands.
We all know that poverty in the twenty-first century is a
shameful reality for our nation, and in the Virgin Islands,
child poverty is heartbreaking. According to a report from
Community Foundation of the Virgin Islands and Kids Count, 31
percent of children in the Virgin Islands live in poverty. And
to further underscore this troubling statistic, Virgin Islands
families are struggling with the very high cost of living
driven by many factors, including that much of our food is
imported, and we have the highest price for electricity in the
nation. And while, thankfully, the American economy is on the
rebound, and reports of job growth in this country are very
good news, unemployment in the territories is over 13 percent.
Mr. Chairman, Virgin Islanders are proud people, and for
them, they are willing and able and very much want to work, but
good-paying jobs, or any jobs, in that territory are scarce. So
for many Virgin Islanders, SNAP is the lifeline that helps them
put food on the table and ensures their children, as has been
underscored here, who are the main recipients, children in
school are not hungry and ready to learn. For too many of those
children, that school meal is their only hope. My constituents
and, indeed, friends and family that insist that their children
go to school to eat that meal, and the mothers and fathers who
have jobs but are such low-paying jobs, go to homeless shelters
for their lunch because when those families come home, they are
going to have a cup of tea and a piece of bread for dinner
before they get back to school.
So one of the things that I am concerned about is we talk
in this Committee about the waivers, and it appears that people
are hopeful that the waivers are ending, but my question is
what happens to those communities and those areas should the
ending of that waiver occur, where there is persistent poverty
and unemployment that is very high? If you would both answer
that question please.
Mr. Greenstein. Well, this connects to Congresswoman
DelBene's question, and is one of the reasons I would very much
support the proposal that she mentioned. Under that proposal,
people hitting that 3 month limit would be offered a work slot.
Ms. Plaskett. Yes.
Mr. Greenstein. Now, if they took it, the benefits would
continue, but in the absence of that, we will have people
hitting the 3 month work slot who are searching for work, they
are looking but they can't find a slot, particularly if they
are--don't have good work skills or they are in an area where
the economy is weak, and they could then end up with no
assistance at all.
I should have mentioned this earlier. If you look at the
population that is subject to the 3 month limit, their average
income is 19 percent of the poverty line, $2,200 a year. These
are some of the poorest people in the country. Many of them
have problems. A number of them are on the verge of
homelessness. They are not exactly the best organized, most
skilled, most abled group. So I really do think we ought to be
allowing them to search diligently for a job. In most other
areas that is part of a work requirement. And if they can't
find a job, we ought to be offering them a work slot. I do
worry about the hardship that will entail for people who are
willing to work, and are willing to look, but who can't find
the job and are not offered a work slot, and then have their
food assistance cut off. And some share of the million people
who will be cut off will be in that condition.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Mr. Besharov, I know you mentioned
that we are no longer in the poverty of Mississippi. The great
State of Mississippi has a much lower poverty rate than the
Virgin Islands. Could you speak to the waiver being removed and
what happens to these families?
Mr. Besharov. Well, the problem goes deeper than the
waiver. About 5 years ago, I wrote a book about WIC, and I said
we live in a world in which, at the time, if I remember
correctly, 55 percent of all newborns received WIC benefits.
And I went through an argument that that was too high. We can
quibble about what the number should be. But we said don't just
reduce the eligibility rules so that fewer children receive WIC
benefits; don't cut the program, but use that money to bolster
the spending at the bottom. Who you described are the people at
the bottom who need extra help, and my view is that too many
people at higher incomes are getting benefits. We need to look
at that issue and have a political argument. One side will win
and one side will lose, but it is something we ought to do.
Keep in mind that at the bottom, people may need higher
benefits.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's----
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
The Chairman.--time has expired. I would like for the
record to reflect that the waiver relates to able-bodied adults
with no dependents under 50. So families aren't caught up in
the waiver issue, and just to clarify that.
Five minutes to Jackie Walorski, the Subcommittee
Chairwoman for Nutrition. Jackie.
Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, gentlemen, I
appreciate you both being here, and I appreciate your expertise
and your lifelong endeavor to figure this program out, and how
to take care of our--it is on. The microphone is on. I
appreciate your expertise in looking at this process.
I think the validity of this conversation has already
actually happened today because of the fact that we are hearing
issues that are real and things that have to be looked at, and
I appreciate the opportunity to look at this over the next
couple of years as this Congress continues to roll out on how
do we make sure that we don't have hungry--our fellow Americans
are not hungry.
How do we ensure that, and what does this program do? I
have been involved in international feeding programs. My
husband and I lived in eastern Europe for 4 years, and we
worked in the sewers with kids belowground that were trying--
escaped from dictators and communism. And we found hunger
there, so I actively did something about it. Found hunger in my
district, in the second district of Indiana, devastating
populations of people that are trying to make this work. And I
guess as we have talked about today, we have talked about the
issue of how do families, how do single moms, and how do
underemployed families pay for food and healthcare and lodging
and daycare, how does all this happen?
And my question is, when they finally get to a point where
they have figured all this out, what then does the government
do to really help these families? Has the SNAP program
historically been just a band-aid to pass them on to the next--
somebody else to deal with them, or is there a sense that there
is an opportunity to actually look at what this government can
do, should do, in actually getting real help to the financial
challenges and how this happened to begin with. So I guess just
historically, where do you see this? Has this always been a
band-aid to try to get people along, or is there a long-term
solution that has been talked about?
Mr. Besharov. Well, the world has changed. Before 1996, we
would have had this conversation about TANF. And what happened
was, when the Congress reformed TANF and the caseloads went way
down, the SNAP caseloads, over time, over a 20 year period,
went up. And as I said in my testimony, some people, on the
right especially, call SNAP Welfare 2.0, the new version of
welfare. The difference is that within the SNAP program, the
states don't have an incentive to really reform, to provide
those kinds of uplifting services because of the formula. The
formula is, if a state wants to provide services to people in
your district in Indiana, it has to pay 50 percent of the
costs, but if it wants to just give out SNAP benefits, it only
pays the administrative costs, and those are very low.
So my recommendation is that whatever the incentive is,
whether it is giving the states a bounty every time they get
somebody from SNAP a good job, or an advanced degree or
whatever, give them a financial incentive to help the people on
SNAP. It is not there now.
Mrs. Walorski. Is there any sense of stewardship on the
government's--from the government's perspective once somebody
is on SNAP, this issue of trying to figure out what keeps them
from recurring, what keeps them from getting back on, in the
government sense, is there anything that actually looks to ever
really help these families stay out of--do states check on
them, do social workers check on these people, is there a
validity that somebody really cares about what happens to these
people, or is this just simply we have declared the program
worked if they just are no longer a beneficiary?
Mr. Besharov. That is a tough question to answer. I think
it depends on the state, it depends on the governor, and it
depends on the timing. Many governors, Republicans and
Democrats, want to address these long-term problems----
Mrs. Walorski. Do we mandate----
Mr. Besharov.--and----
Mrs. Walorski. Does the Federal Government mandate--have we
ever mandated that somebody seriously track these families and
see what is working, what is not working?
Mr. Besharov. In myriad ways. The problem, when we as a
collective impose those rules on the states, suddenly all we
have done to the governor and the secretary of health or
whatever, or of food stamps or welfare, is his or her job then
to ask, ``Have I met the Federal mandates, have I met the
Federal mandates?''
Mrs. Walorski. I want to go quick to Mr. Greenstein.
Mr. Besharov. Go ahead.
Mr. Greenstein. Could I quickly note----
Mrs. Walorski. Yes.
Mr. Greenstein.--there are very different kinds of people
on SNAP. If you look at the people who got on between 2008 and
2012, \1/4\ were off within 4 months; 52 percent off within a
year; 67 percent off within 24 months. A lot of people don't
need other help. They are on for a temporary period.
Other people are--their problem is just their wages are low
and they need a supplement.
Mrs. Walorski. I----
Mr. Greenstein. So there is a----
Mrs. Walorski. I appreciate it.
Mr. Greenstein. There is a smaller group that needs more
substantial help.
Mrs. Walorski. Right. I hear you. I appreciate it. I look
forward to the continued dialogue.
Mr. Greenstein. Right.
Mrs. Walorski. I think it is very, very good to have that
conversation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Aguilar, from California, 5 minutes.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Greenstein, expanding the discussion to food
insecurity, which is related to this topic: I was interested to
note that University of Minnesota School of Public Health had a
study last year that said 27 percent of veterans who came back
from Iran and Afghanistan were subject to food insecurity. How
will possible cuts in benefits affect these men and women who
have already helped out this country tremendously?
Mr. Greenstein. Well, in general, cutting benefits would
tend to increase food insecurity, not on a one-to-one basis,
but in general.
Our situation, both Doug and I alluded to this in our
testimony, you compare where we are today in terms of hunger,
serious hunger, serious malnutrition, the most serious aspects
of food insecurity, to where we were in the late 1960's before
we had a nationwide SNAP program, and it is really like night
and day. We still have significant food insecurity, not of the
most severe kind we used to have, but still of some concern,
and if we reduce benefits, we will go backwards in that regard,
in my assessment.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Besharov, Mr. Greenstein's testimony pointed out
something to me, and it reminded me that three bipartisan
groups; Simpson-Bowles, the Bipartisan Policy Council, and the
more informal Senate Gang of Six, they all shielded SNAP from
reductions. If there are additional savings to be achieved
within tightening work requirements and or changing
eligibility, why didn't these groups make a point to highlight
that by their proposals?
Mr. Besharov. Well, I can't speak for the groups. I can
tell you that there is something quite insidious about the CBO
scoring rules that affect some of this. Many analysts, not all,
but many analysts believe that work requirements, job search
and so forth, will reduce the roles. CBO scores them as a net
cost, which is to say, there was a bill proposed by some
Republicans 2 years ago and the result was CBO said this is
going to cost money, not less. Now, I don't know about what the
commissions did. They were taking on so many big ticket items.
They may have decided this one shouldn't be taken on. They may
have decided that this program did so many good things that it
shouldn't be touched at all.
My view is that SNAP has grown tremendously in the last few
years, and now it should be treated as an income support
program, and all the issues that we have seen should be applied
because we would find that many of the changes would benefit
recipients. Not all, but many would benefit recipients.
Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Greenstein, would you care to comment?
Mr. Greenstein. Well, I was able to talk to a number of
people involved----
Voice. Microphone.
Mr. Greenstein.--including--I am sorry. I talked on a
number of occasions to Erskine Bowles, to Alan Simpson, to
people involved in Domenici-Rivlin, and to the Senators of both
parties of the Gang of Six, and they made a specific
determination that deficit reduction should not increase
poverty or hardship. And they weren't saying that there were no
improvements that could be made in these programs, but they
were saying that they did not think reducing benefits in these
programs was an appropriate source of deficit reduction.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, sir.
I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Allen for 5 minutes--I am sorry--yes, Rick Allen, 5
minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for
being here today.
And I have been in Congress now for--this is my seventh
week, and I ran on the basis that Washington was too big and it
really did too much, and it really impeded the private sector
from growing, which creates jobs and makes folks independent. I
do think the SNAP program is essential to feed families, but I
also know that, somehow, it needs to prime the pump and not be
the pump. And so I was interested in some of the comments about
families moving in and out of this program.
Mr. Besharov, as far as the states are concerned, do states
fund what works, and what have the states been doing to focus
programs and spending on what works?
Mr. Besharov. Well, the Obama Administration has led an
effort to talk about what works and evidence-based programs.
Many states have made a commitment to try to implement and fund
programs that have shown some sign of success. In this program,
they have been somewhat stymied, as I have mentioned, because
of the funding rules, but I was quite impressed, when I did
meet with these 20 state commissioners, outside of the SNAP
process, using the WIOA authorities that they did have, using
other programmatic authorities, there is a great deal of
experimentation already in terms of job training for SNAP
participants and so forth. The problem is these are all small
demonstration programs. Not one of them is statewide, not one
of them is funded at the level that the state officials might
like to see. And that is because, as you point out, they are
constrained by the Federal rules. Their first priority is to
fulfill the Federal requirements.
Mr. Allen. Okay. So what you are saying here is that, for
the programs to be properly evaluated, to see what works, the
states are restricted actually by the Federal Government to
make sure that happens?
Mr. Besharov. Well, they are partly restricted, but it is
much more a fact that the incentive structure just doesn't
encourage them. You go to the governor and you say, ``Look, I
have this terrific program, I think it might work, but it is
going to cost us $5 million.''
Mr. Allen. I see.
Mr. Besharov. And then the governor asks what happens if it
works? Do we gain? Do we gain because SNAP caseloads go down?
No, sir. And we have to incentivize the states in a responsible
way to benefit when they provide services to SNAP recipients.
Mr. Allen. As far as the evaluation process goes, why
aren't all programs in SNAP vigorously evaluated? I mean folks
that move in and out of the process, how do they get off of
SNAP, what works, what doesn't work, and--because, right now, I
mean we are at an all-time high as far as folks receiving SNAP
benefits, and the objective is to get these folks good jobs
where they are not using this, and can actually fund their own
nutrition. But how do we vigorously come up with something that
will work to get folks off the program?
Mr. Greenstein. Can I----
Mr. Allen. Sure.
Mr. Greenstein.--real quick----
Mr. Allen. Sure.
Mr. Greenstein. At the present time, we actually don't have
good information, good data, good evaluation on here are a
series of employment-related programs that work for SNAP
participants. That is the purpose of the $200 million, I think
it is, that has been provided in the 2014 Farm Bill for
demonstration projects in up to ten states with rigorous
evaluation. And if, as a result of that, we really learn some
things that really work, then we ought to think about how we
fund them. We may want to look at some of the incentive issues,
as Doug has referred to. It is not as though we know right now
here are the five things to do, just do them, but that is the
purpose of that demo, and that demonstration project could
prove important.
Mr. Allen. Are we spending that money to get to the source
of the problem though? In other words, we are spending a lot of
money, as you said, some money has been appropriated to
evaluate the programs. Are we getting out--I mean are we
getting a bang for our buck out of that evaluation process, or
is it----
Mr. Greenstein. Well, it hasn't----
Mr. Allen.--just----
Mr. Greenstein. It hasn't started yet. It is just about to
start.
Mr. Allen. Okay, all right. Well, I am--I apologize for
that.
Mr. Besharov. Well, I would also add that recordkeeping,
data systems, whether it is the Department of Agriculture, HHS,
are very weak, and those of us who know about them worry about
the quality of the data.
The Chairman. Yes. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Gentlemen, thank you so much for being
here, and the problems you describe are descriptive of many
people in my large, sprawling, rural Arizona district. And I
want to point out, for example, a recent study from Johns
Hopkins regarding food insecurity on the Navajo Nation, and
some of the statistics are just staggering. For instance,
unemployment is over 50 percent, 76.7 percent of the households
suffer food insecurity, and 82 percent of the population is
overweight or obese. So SNAP is essential to these folks.
And my question really is twofold, and I would like both of
you to address it. The first is, how does the fact that one
million people are going to be leaving SNAP affect tribal and
rural communities? And it is interesting that the USDA does not
release numbers on hunger among American Indians. My first
question is how is that fact of one million people leaving
going to affect tribal communities? And second, this is a
difficult problem, we have been dealing with it for years, so I
like to look to innovation as a possible way to move this so
that it will be more effective and more efficient. And I would
like to know your top three innovative ideas if you were going
to make the SNAP program more effective and more efficient.
Mr. Besharov. I worked for the New York State Legislature,
and the Speaker got this briefing about how we should run the
State Assembly, and all the steps in the legislative process.
And the first step was this light bulb that lit up; the idea
was that someone needed to have had a bright idea. I would take
the view that there are loads of bright ideas, a couple of them
are in this town, but most of them are out there, not in
Washington; people trying to deal with the problems. And
probably, I don't want to go too far, the problems in the
Virgin Islands are a little different from the problems on a
Navajo reservation. There are some similarities, some not.
When we constrain decision-making as much as we do, we
remove the ability of local people to come up with bright
ideas. At the other end of this, when we give too much
discretion, they go running in whatever way they go. So I don't
want to leave it as the answer is give everybody a free rein
here, but the more we constrain in Washington, the less ability
there is on an Indian reservation. And I don't know why USDA
does or doesn't count whatever it does, but ask me if I am
surprised and the answer is, of course, no. So my bright idea
is let a lot of people have bright ideas, give them the
wherewithal to persuade local communities, and then provide the
sort of supervision that we really didn't provide in TANF to
make sure that it is done responsibly.
Mr. Greenstein. I would have a couple of thoughts with
regard to the first part of your question about people coming
off the program. To me, the reservation you cited is an example
of why the right policy should be to have a work program slot
or a job training slot for these people. If we don't, because
whether it is the reservation, the Federal Government, the
resources are not provided for that, then in an area as
overwhelmingly poor as you have described, that is the kind of
place that ought to be allowed to continue to have a waiver,
otherwise ending the waiver isn't going to give people a job,
it is going to create a lot of hardship.
Having said that, we ought to be doing better on the job
training front. We ought to look at how, with the Workforce
Investment Act improvements, can that lead to better service in
a reservation. The job training demos could be important there
as well.
I would also note that we are making some progress in
improving coordination across programs using, for example, SNAP
data to make sure that poor children don't fall through the
cracks in terms of school lunches and breakfasts. I think there
is a potential for further progress there.
And finally, this area is the kind of place I worry about
when--we asked the question coming off of the recent--maybe a
year or 2 ago, Institute of Medicine study, there is a question
as to whether the underlying level of SNAP benefits is adequate
for people at the very bottom.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Yes.
Mr. Greenstein. We do have evidence that about 80 percent
of the benefits are used in the first \1/2\ of the month. A lot
of reports of people running out before the end of the month.
In an area where there are no other jobs and no other income,
that is a concern.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Gentlemen, thank you so much.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Rouzer, 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen,
for coming before the Committee today.
I am going to ask you a question that, if I have gotten it
once, I have gotten it a million times back home. I represent
southeastern North Carolina. I have a lot of families that work
two and three jobs to make ends meet. During the course of the
Great Recession, a number of them lost a couple of those jobs,
were working one, doing whatever they could. And so they go to
try to get help and they can't get any. And then they get in
the grocery store line and they see other folks who have food
stamp benefits and everything else, and they know for a fact
that they have not paid near the amount of taxes or anything
that these gentlemen, these families have over a long period of
time. And so the question is: how do we get our incentives
right, how do we--and I go back to this basic principle. You
get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax. In
fact, on the tax side of things, that principle is riddled all
throughout the Tax Code. You have tax credits for this and
that, and deductions, et cetera, for all those things that
Congress wants to encourage people to do. While on this side,
on the benefits side of things, it just strikes me that
perhaps--and this is the difficulty I recognize, and we all
want to take care of those who need the help, but when I have
folks back home who are telling me they are in dire straits,
they paid their taxes, done everything right all these years,
and they are not eligible for anything, and then they contrast
that with those who have not contributed quite as much to
society, let us say, and they are getting everything, that is a
real problem. That issue surfaces all the time, particularly in
the past, 4 to 5 years in particular.
So how do we get out incentives right? We have been kind of
all around this, and I am asking more of a broader question,
perhaps maybe a little bit more of a philosophical question,
but we have to start thinking about this from a different
angle. Do we need to have a program, in essence, where we come
in and say, all right, if you have a job, here is a payment
because you are doing the right thing? I just throw that out as
an idea. You know, there are abuses with everything that you
propose, obviously, but I am just curious, how can we think
about this from a very different angle because, clearly, what
we have in place, at least from my constituents' standpoint, is
not working?
Mr. Besharov. You ask a greatly important question, and I
am trying to punt. The first way is that we recognize that
these incentives exist; that they are real. The year after I
was in Mississippi, I was a trial lawyer, and we were in court
and taking a child away from a mother because she had been
abusive, and giving the child to the grandmother. The
grandmother sat there on the witness stand, and I watched her
recalculate her AFDC benefit in her head. So these benefit
structures, they may be difficult for us to understand, but for
a lot of the people, they are their livelihood; they
understand.
So the first step is to understand that these incentives
exist. Second, some of these incentives are embedded in the way
we live. I mentioned briefly about cohabiting couples. This is
a giant problem. At UMD, we have a research program on this. It
is wonderful for a professor because there is no good answer.
If you say that people who cohabit should be treated as an
economic unit, and that is the formal law--but I don't think
that the data suggests that is not how it works because they
have to technically share--but if you say that they have to
share, they are going to lie to us. And to enforce it, we are
going to have to return to the old man-in-the-house rule; we
are going to have to go to the house and see who is living
there. If we say, ``Well, until you marry, it doesn't count,''
which is the informal rule now, then we have really created a
big disincentive to marry.
Without knowing a great deal about the situations you
describe, I am willing to bet that one of the reasons for what
they are seeing there is family structure, which is to say: if
there are two parents in the house and one of them is working,
depending on the situation, they are unlikely to be eligible
for food stamps. So maybe your advice is tell him he should
leave the house, pick up the food stamps, and then ask him to
come back. There are no easy answers, but unless we look to see
how to handle these questions, we will never find answers. And
I think that is important. I think it is greatly important
because we want to protect the people at the bottom, but as
this program has reached more and more people with somewhat
higher earnings, we have to fix these incentives and pronto.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Adams for 5 minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
gentlemen.
My district in North Carolina includes both Charlotte and
Greensboro, two of the larger cities, and so my being on this
Committee, I want to make sure both the adults and children in
my district will continue to have access to SNAP if they need
it, because both Mecklenburg County and Guilford County, are
two of the top counties for SNAP recipients in North Carolina.
No studies have shown a causal link between SNAP benefits and
obesity. Any oversight of SNAP must recognize, I believe that
it is already helping families eat more healthy foods.
So my question, Mr. Greenstein, one of your organization's
publications is a report on trends on SNAP participation rates.
It is estimated that 1.4 million eligible children were missing
out on benefits. So as we implement this 2014 Farm Bill, what
are the largest barriers to ensuring that children eligible for
SNAP are actually receiving the benefits? Mr. Greenstein.
Mr. Greenstein. Well, we have some issues, particularly in
families that are disconnected in various ways. The parents may
have health issues, mental health issues, other issues, and the
family may be eligible but doesn't get signed up. I think there
are a few issues here; one is the bulk of eligible children who
aren't enrolled are actually children in working poor families.
That is still where the largest share of eligible poor families
with children who aren't enrolled fall. Information can help. I
also think this is an area where we can both improve
participation and reduce administrative costs by better
coordinating the eligibility and intake and verification
systems across different programs. We have made progress, but
we still have situations where families go to one office and
apply for SNAP, a month or 2 later they go to another office to
apply for Medicaid. They are asked for the same information,
and to the degree that we can use information technology to
coordinate this, we will get more accuracy and fewer errors. We
will reduce barriers to participation. Working families will
have to spend less time off of work, and more will be
participating, and we will have more accuracy and lower
administrative costs at the same time. I think that is an
important area to try to do more of.
Last point is, some of these situations, this is very
common in all of these programs where people go off the program
when their certification ends, for whatever reason, they didn't
understand they had to reapply, or they got caught in the red
tape, and then a few months go by until they get back through
the red tape and they get back on the program.
So again, using information technology, information from
other programs to try to coordinate better can also reduce this
churning on and off of the program. If a family is eligible
because the parent makes very low wages, we would want the
children to be able to not experience these multiple months of
breaks of assistance.
Ms. Adams. Okay. The Thrifty Food Plan is what USDA uses to
calculate the cost of a nutritious yet low-cost diet. The
overall formula is adjusted for inflation, but the price of
foods in the Thrifty Food Plan have not been updated since
2006, so how much of a gap still exists between a household
receiving the maximum level of benefits, and the average
monthly cost of purchasing healthy foods?
Mr. Greenstein. Well, there are a couple of issues here. So
the SNAP benefits for any fiscal year, October through the next
September, are based on the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan, the
lowest cost, bare-bones diet, the Agriculture Department has
developed. It is based on the cost of that plan the previous
June. So it is actually 3 months out-of-date when the benefit
starts, the fiscal year starts, and 15 months out-of-date when
it ends. For that reason, there was a significant period of
time where the law, as passed by this Committee and the
counterpart in the Senate, was that the benefits would be tied
to 103 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan, the idea
being 103 percent of the previous June from the previous fiscal
year would equal about 100 percent on average in the current
year. But that was ended as a budget savings----
Mr. Adams. I am out of time.
Mr. Greenstein.--in the 1990s.
Mr. Adams. I appreciate it.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Yoho, 5 minutes.
Mr. Yoho. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you having this timely
meeting, and bringing this up. You know, with the nutritional
program accounting for 80 percent of the farm bill, and the
farm bill roughly $800 billion over the next 5 years, it is
timely and this is the first--the best one to bring up, since
it is the most money spent. And I appreciate you guys being
here.
And the fact that I see a little bit on different sides,
which is good because we get a--we get that feedback, and that
is what we are going to need to fix this problem. And this is
something we want everybody off of this program, even if it
is--I mean in an idealistic world, but we know that is not
going to happen. You know, and I am sure with a lot of the
government programs, you see \1/3\ of the people just are
taking advantage of it or a percentage, I won't say \1/3\, and
then there is another percentage that are working the system,
and then there is that group that it was intended for, the very
people--the elderly, the children, the people with
disabilities--that is what we really need to reform this
program. And I don't know anybody on either side that doesn't
want to do that, but yet when you get these big government
programs, and you have roughly 12 different agencies working to
solve this problem, it gets kind of muddled. And being a
veterinarian for the last 30 years in my training, we looked at
the whole system. What I see here is we are dealing with
nutritionally deprived or underutilized individuals. That is a
symptom. The underlying problem, and Mr. Scott brought this up,
is poverty. You know, why is there poverty in the United States
of America? You know, the freest country in the world with the
most opportunity, and we are talking about poverty. And we have
had a war we waged for the last 50 years, spent over $20
trillion, and we are getting more people on that.
And, Mr. Besharov, you brought up the point that until we
deal with our underlying problems, we are going to continue
this. You know, our money is being devalued. We are $18
trillion in debt. We have Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid that are just consuming us, along with our interest
and retirement programs, and until we turn the tide and bring
value back to our dollar, this is going to go up because people
are going down as far as quality of life. And so saying that, I
wanted to ask you, and I assume you guys are going to be
available for input from here until we get this resolved, and
success should be measured by retiring a program. You know, I
don't know if the Federal Government never does that, but
wouldn't it be--I know it is ideological, to be able to retire
it to a point where it is 30 percent of the farm bill because
we got people out of poverty.
And so you were talking about the Federal Government
providing so many different levels of support, and we create a
disconnect between the local governments, maybe the faith-based
organizations, and state government, and I would like to hear
your opinion, do we get to a point where the Federal Government
steps in and says we are going to handle this, and so it takes
the onus or the pressure off the states and say, ``Hey, it is
the Federal Government's problem?'' What is your thought on
that, Mr. Besharov?
Mr. Besharov. I think that is the big challenge. We are a
continental country, 340 million people, and to think that you
can run these programs from Washington is to inhale, frankly.
Mr. Yoho. To inhale.
Mr. Besharov. And yet the other \1/2\ of this is, it is
Federal tax money and so there has to be a balance that is
drawn. I don't think the Congress nor the Administrations, the
last four or five of them, have thought through this problem
hard enough. They haven't given us a way to think in the modern
world about the distribution of authority.
I study what other countries do. And many countries are
smaller, Europe all together is larger than us, but every
country is smaller. But what they are doing in Europe, what
they are experimenting with in China, is devolving more and
more authority to the local level, and attaching it to
accountability. We haven't done that modernization of Federal
programming nearly as much as we could.
Mr. Yoho. I look forward to having you come in at some
point, we can talk. And I would like to get Mr. Greenstein's
comments on that.
Mr. Greenstein. Well, if the core of your question is what
do we do to dramatically reduce poverty in the country so there
isn't the need that we have today for the SNAP program, and
that is a really big question. If you compare the United States
to Western Europe, when you look at levels of poverty just
based on market income, employment and wages, we are about in
the middle. When you look at levels of poverty after taxes and
government benefits, we have one of the highest poverty rates
because we actually do less than those other countries do. The
answer is how do we get to full employment? If we got the
unemployment rate back to----
Mr. Yoho. I would love to talk to you more----
Mr. Greenstein. Yes.
Mr. Yoho.--but I am out of time, and I appreciate it.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Ashford for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ashford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for this hearing. I spent a number of years as chair of a
committee in the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature, and I always
got to talk first and for long periods of time, so this is
really good for me to be able to learn patience at this ripe
old age of 65, or whatever I am. But in any event, this is
incredibly important to me and I thank the chair for having the
hearing. I also appreciate Mr. McGovern's comments about the
need for these programs, and the fact that we are talking about
them is not a reason to cut them unnecessarily or make them go
away without good reason. And I also appreciate the comments
regarding Simpson-Bowles, and it is absolutely right. I mean it
was a very thoughtful study of our deficits, and how we get to
a balanced budget and how we proceed forward, and that we
should not be putting people into poverty as a part of that
process, and that is very important.
In the early 1990s I was a sponsor the first Welfare Reform
Bill in Nebraska, 1994. We had a waiver, we did welfare reform
in Nebraska in 1994, 2 years before the Federal law. And then I
served a number of years as chair, actually, Executive Director
of our Housing Authority in Omaha, so I have had the
opportunity to deal with this. And couple of things. One is,
every case is different. Every single person in poverty is
different from the other person in poverty, and it is so
difficult to categorize these matters. A young woman with a
child or two children is in a different place than somebody
that has slipped into poverty because of the recession. And,
going back to the 1960's when many of these programs started,
we had only a few programs. They were larger, in a sense, but
they had not been broken down into smaller component parts. It
may be a little easier to see where we were and what the
spending was. We have sort of evolved from that into lots of
little programs, so that we have 80 programs or whatever it is.
I know from my experience at the Housing Authority the
cliff effect is a huge issue, a massive issue. The thousands of
people that I tried to help in the Housing Authority who lose
their housing subsidy when they receive a job, as opposed to at
least maybe getting 90 days extra time so they could actually
solidify their job employment status. And then all the other
programs that are related to these individuals. One of the
biggest tragedies my years in the Housing Authority is the loss
of the Self-Sufficiency Program. On the housing side, when
Self-Sufficiency funds were cut off, that was a massive
disincentive, and caused more people to remain in public
housing when they should be out working.
So every decision has a reaction, and every act has an act
on the other side. So my view, from those experiences, is that;
number one, the comments made about data collection and data--
well, data collection, and then also being able to rely on data
to make decisions in a coordinated way is the most important
thing we can do. So let me ask this question: As you see all
these various programs, we have talked about some of them, and
this is an incredibly important Committee meeting and subject
for me because I spent a lot of my life working on this, and
the biggest frustration was lack of data. The biggest
frustration was not being able to take a look at the history of
a particular recipient, someone in the juvenile justice system,
for example, and going back and trying to figure out why they
got there. So I guess I have only given you a minute, but if
you would just very briefly discuss where we are with data
coordination and collaboration. These demonstration projects
are important, where do we go in that regard?
Mr. Greenstein. Well, I think there are a couple of issues.
For the demonstration projects, one certainly hopes and expects
that a very good evaluation firm will be hired, and that they
will work with the states doing the demos, and that the
condition of the demos will be real collection of good data.
You have to have the data to evaluate.
For SNAP as a whole, actually, the data collection is much
better than for a number of other Federal programs. You compare
Medicaid, for example, to SNAP, Medicaid caseload data is
always a couple of years old, it is questionable. I will say
SNAP, in terms of being current on expenditures, caseloads,
annual breakouts of the characteristics of participants, is
actually one of the best of the large programs on that front.
Mr. Ashford. And my time is up. I just wish there was one
place we could go. So we had somebody in public housing to find
out what can we do to help them, get them a job and get them
what they need.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Abraham for 5 minutes.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
Knowing that a child can't learn if he is hungry, he or
she, Mr. Aguilar's question that some veterans were having
issues or problems getting some benefits, of all the Federal
safety net programs that are out there, are there one or two
that we need better coordination with the SNAP program to make
it more efficient? This is a wonderful Committee meeting, and
we certainly want to serve those that need serving, but we also
want to be efficient with our tax dollars as much as we can. So
answer that please. Thank you.
Mr. Besharov. Yes, thank you for that question. I have
thought about it a lot. You have heard us put together the
issues of unemployment insurance and SNAP. We could do the same
about disability and TANF, but let me stay with unemployment
insurance because that is the problem facing so much of America
today. European countries were famous for having almost
infinite unemployment benefits, well, 5 years, 10 years, and so
forth. You didn't have to look for a job, and so forth. They
have now--and I wish Mr. Ashford was here because what they
have done is they have gotten away from the cliffs of benefits,
and they have these step-downs so that after 1 year, your
unemployment benefit goes down a certain amount. You are not
thrown off. Then after another 6 months, your benefit goes down
a little bit more. And this is a signal, and the research is
pretty clear. When people see a deadline coming, it focuses
their mind.
Right now, it would be difficult to implement something
like that because SNAP would have to be phased out the same
way, or phased in the same way. So my suggestion is, as you
think about SNAP for higher income people, people who are
working or can work, you connect it to the unemployment rules,
and you make sure the two work in sync because if SNAP is a
countercyclical program, we ought to take that into
consideration.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Lujan Grisham for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor, in your testimony, of course, you have indicated
that you believe there is evidence to show that SNAP may, in
fact, increase obesity in certain groups. And as a former
health secretary, I certainly understand the importance of
combating obesity. And, in fact, some startling statistics that
are national, and as important are the startling statistics
that are from my own home state, I am going to start with
those. We have the hungriest children in the country and we
have some of the highest poverty rates in the country.
Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children, and
quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years. Obesity rates
are significantly higher in low income communities, which means
states like New Mexico are hit even harder. Costs associated
with obesity alone are about $147 billion. That is 2008
dollars. There are many estimates that get that closer to $300
billion, depending upon what other chronic issues you are
identifying with obesity, which I would argue is relevant to
the total cost.
But I want to point out some good news on that front. Now,
the CDC recently showed that there is a 43 percent decrease in
obesity in 2 to 5 year olds. And let me tell you where that
came from. It came from reducing the consumption of sweet
beverages, improving nutritional standards and programs inside
early childhood education, and providing physical activities,
which are not requirements of the SNAP program, which are not
being done by our school nutrition programs, which are not
being done by states, particularly states that are poor. And so
while I agree with you that we need to get our arms around, as
policymakers, obesity and the challenges, I disagree that SNAP
is that contributing force. And I want to tell you that I did
the SNAP challenge, and I consider myself a Mom, I raised two
daughters, and have always been a public servant, and have to
be careful about what I can do and not do. I can tell you that
on $4.50 a day, I was pushed towards the kinds of simple
carbohydrates that give you a full belly, but aren't
nutritionally sound and completely inappropriate; rice, pasta,
ramen. I could afford a couple of fresh fruits; I think it was
an apple and maybe two bananas. I could not afford for a week's
worth to buy fresh vegetables. So it is clear to me that with
these food budgets, that we are pushing families to purchase
cheap, energy-dense foods that are filling as a way to maximize
their calories per dollar, and to, quite frankly, stave off
hunger.
Now, I have spoken to pediatricians and dieticians who
agree that SNAP itself and having a food benefit isn't the
issue. It is about making sure that we are funding nutrition
education, and making sure that we are dealing with food
deserts, and making sure that we have access to fresh fruits
and vegetables, and quite frankly, making sure that the benefit
matches that reality for families. We need to give them more
options for food purchasing, we need to encourage marketers of
fresh vegetables and fruit to open farmers' markets in these
communities that are only served by either a large grocery
chain or a convenience market in rural and frontier
communities.
Given that, should the Committee, Professor, look at
increasing SNAP benefit levels so that families can, to our
point, better afford adequate diets that include healthier
foods?
Mr. Besharov. Well, I made the point that I worry about
people at the bottom. As incomes go up, the SNAP benefit is
really a supplement to other monies available, and I would
worry about people at the bottom. But I want to add something
else because there is only a minute here. The other point you
made, which is crucially important, you mentioned the food
counseling in pre-K programs, and I don't remember if you said
WIC.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. I didn't say WIC, but I----
Mr. Besharov. Should have.
Mr. Lujan Grisham.--am likely to maybe, I don't know, it is
too early to tell if I agree with your next statement. Let us
see.
Mr. Besharov. But, as you know, WIC is largely, although
there is a program for 3 to 5 year olds, WIC is largely for the
infants.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. And their mothers.
Mr. Besharov. And their mothers. So what you have just
described are programs that do not continue for the lifetime of
the recipients. So we could create a new program, we could----
Ms. Lujan Grisham. I am going to reclaim my time. Are you
maybe leaning towards increasing all of these programs because,
in fact, I would absolutely agree with you, and that is a bit
unfair----
Mr. Besharov. I would----
Ms. Lujan Grisham.--you to answer
Mr. Besharov.--stick more counseling into a SNAP program.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. But all the studies indicate, in my last
16 seconds, sir, and I would love for you to come back to this
Committee, Mr. Chairman, and talk to us more about that, but in
fact, it is the counseling and nutrition education along with
sufficient resources to purchase those foods at home. It can't
be a one-stop effort for families to be in a position to
actually have those healthy lifestyles.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you so very much.
Mr. Abraham [presiding]. Mr. Scott?
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
First of all, the situation regarding employment and jobs,
poverty, all of that, all of that has been structured into
economic social policy over the last quarter century, and we
have not been able to replace it. For example, millions of
jobs, millions of jobs that we once had 25 years ago have
disappeared because of our terrible policy of shipping so many
manufacturing jobs, the middle-income, blue collar jobs have
been shipped overseas: we have lost them. There has to be a
struggle to get those manufacturing jobs back, opening up
manufacturing plants and start making it in America. We have
become a service economy, and not a making one. That is one
area.
The other one then is our policy of sending so many of our
young, eligible fathers to prison. Millions. Our prison
population went from 300,000 in 1975 to over two million today.
These are providers that are not there, and this is why we have
so many single, female head of households. I mean so when you
look at everything that we have done, we have to collect some
of these things first. However, when we look at the situation
of hunger, we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with
the bath water.
Now, one of the issues that seem to be permeating
everybody's mind is waste, fraud and abuse, but the facts tell
us that SNAP abuse is lower than it has ever been. The most
recent data show that the SNAP accuracy rate is 97 percent, and
part of the remaining three percent was actually underpayments,
which saved the government money.
So my question here is that sometimes it is not getting the
right answer that matters if we don't set up the right question
to get to that right answer. I asked this question before,
where are examples of the fraud, where are the examples of the
abuse, where are the areas in which we look inward to see where
we cut or will we do this, and I can't find any answers on
that. I want somebody to tell me where is the waste, where is
the abuse, and where is the fraud in a program where the
accuracy rate is said to be 97 percent, and the other three
percent is largely due to underpayments.
Mr. Greenstein. It is interesting, Congressman, a few years
ago, the National Journal, one of the wonkier news magazines in
town, evaluated, looked at a whole range of Federal programs
and they rated SNAP as one of the government's most successful
programs.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Correct.
Mr. Greenstein. They noted two things; that, for a program
of its size and complexity, its error and fraud rates were very
low, and that it is especially effective in responding promptly
to increases in needs, such as during recessions. But, we look
at a lot of the issues, we are trying to improve the program
and make it better, but this actually is one of the best-run
programs we have. As I said at the beginning of my testimony,
it has used business practice and information technology to
come a long way. When I started working on the program, the
error rate was 17 percent. The net loss is now two percent. It
does much better in serving the working poor. Again, not that
we can't make it better, but we should take account of the
improvements that have been made, and the degree of
effectiveness that the program has. We live in a cynical time
and we tend to downgrade everything, but this program has
really done enormous----
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Absolutely.
Mr. Greenstein.--good for tens of millions of people over
the last several decades.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Right.
Mr. Besharov. I would just add one thing, if you don't
mind.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes.
Mr. Besharov. I would return to your comment about the
African-Americans and other men who are in prison, and about to
come out, the number is close to two million.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes.
Mr. Besharov. My reading of the literature is that these
are some of the most employable men----
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Absolutely.
Mr. Besharov.--and that the programs that work with them
are much more successful than a lot of the other programs we
talked about. Wherever you get a billion dollars, whether you
shave it off SNAP or find it someplace else, one of the things
we ought to do is fund some more of these prisoner re-entry
programs, and we are not doing a good job there, sir. We really
aren't.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. That is the direction we have
to look at. So many people look at the program and they want to
just chop this thing up here while it is doing a great job, and
the best way to bring down the cost of the SNAP program is to
put people to work. Get the jobs back from overseas, do the
other things like the re-entry program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abraham. Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern. Yes, thank you very much.
First of all, I just want to say for the record so it is
clear, SNAP works. And, Mr. Greenstein, you just made that
point that it is a well-run, efficiently-run, effective
program, and we should be proud of this program. And the
narrative that we oftentimes hear does not reflect the reality,
but it is important to state for the record that this program
works.
Second, I wish Mr. Rouzer was still here because I had an
answer that he could have given his constituent who went in the
shopping line, didn't like the fact that the person in front of
him was buying his groceries with food stamps, and wanted to
know how to respond to that. My response to that constituent
would be, you should be very happy and thank God that you are
not so poor that you qualify for this benefit. This notion that
people want to be poor, or like to be poor, or prefer to be
poor, I don't think reflects reality. I could assure you that
someone who works and earns so little that they still are
eligible for SNAP would prefer a job that pays a better wage so
they could afford whatever food that they want.
Let me also make the point, because listening to some of
the comments in the Committee here, I hope that we in this
Committee resist making this a debate about passing the buck to
the states. States are cash-strapped too, I guess in a perfect
world it would be nice if they could, for our own bottom line
up here, pick up everything that we do, but they are not going
to do that.
And on the issue of food, which we ought to consider as a
right in this country, it is a Federal obligation to lead the
effort to make sure that nobody in this country is hungry, and
that in terms of our safety net, people have access to food.
The other thing I will point out is that SNAP is not a jobs
program; it is a food program, and if we are going to demand
that people be enrolled in worker training programs, and these
programs and those programs, we ought to make sure those
programs exist. The rationale behind some of the governors who
ask for these waivers were that they didn't have enough
programs to be able to accommodate all those who needed worker
training. I am under no illusion that we in this Congress, by
the way, all of a sudden will get religion and start funding
new programs or expanding programs, because all we seem to do
is cut programs.
But let me just ask for the record, do you believe that if
the United States Congress passed, and the President signed, an
increase in the Federal minimum wage, that that would reduce
the number of people currently on SNAP in any way, shape or
form?
Mr. Greenstein. I don't think there is too much question
that it would reduce the number of people, it would also reduce
the average benefit because benefits relate to earnings.
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Mr. Greenstein. The major issues affecting the size of the
program are actually largely outside the control of this
Committee. If we had a five percent or a four percent
unemployment rate, like we did in the late 1990s, many fewer
people would qualify for SNAP. If we had real wage growth at
the bottom of the wage scale, which is an issue a lot broader
than just the minimum wage, fewer people who work would need
SNAP, and people who work and have SNAP would, on average, get
lower benefits than they get today because their wage level
would be higher. But there is a direct relationship, and part
of what has happened is, for the last number of years, we have
had--we have been far from full employment, and we have had
very substantial erosion of wages on the bottom ends of the
wage scale, and those factors are among the significant reasons
that the SNAP program has gotten larger. If we could get back
to the kind of economy we had with fuller employment, and
stronger wages at the bottom where, when the economy grew,
wages grew all across the income scale, you would have fewer
people on SNAP, the average benefit of those on would be lower,
and the costs would be lower.
Mr. McGovern. Do you agree, Mr. Besharov?
Mr. Besharov. I think I would worry about the number of
jobs that existed. There is an argument, but the evidence is
pretty clear, that you raise the minimum wage too much and you
lose jobs. I just parked at the University of Maryland
yesterday. We fired 150, I think it is, could be more, could be
less, parking lot attendants and we put in machines.
Mr. McGovern. Yes.
Mr. Besharov. Not because the jobs went abroad, but because
the machine was cheaper than paying someone to stand there and
collect the money.
Mr. McGovern. I am not sure that is directly due to the
minimum wage, but let me say I do think there is a problem when
people work and they earn so little that they still qualify for
these benefits. We can't have it both ways here. We can't be
asking people to get off of SNAP, and at the same time not
providing them an alternative.
But I just have one final thing. I guess I can't, but----
Mr. Abraham. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McGovern. All right, thank you.
The Chairman [presiding]. This is not the Rules Committee,
this is the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. Ashford for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ashford. I am actually talking twice here, and I
apologize, Mr. Chairman, we are very fortunate in Nebraska, we
did pass the minimum wage at a voter approval of 61 percent of
Nebraskans, it is not exactly a liberal state, but we voted
this time for a minimum wage increase, and it was not
substantial. Your point about making sure that it not be a
significant wage increase or too much of a wage increase--I
mean ours will go up to $9 in 2 years, or whatever it is. But
it will have a significant impact on our food stamp population.
I just want to ask one last question, because it is
intriguing to me, the database or the oversight or whatever in
SNAP is, as you suggest, Mr. Greenstein, it is one of the
better programs. I am very interested in this. Can you then
utilize the data that is collected in regards to SNAP, and I
agree with Mr. McGovern that this is not an employment program,
this is a food program. There are agencies in localities that,
if we had the ability to understand what these people are going
through, that data could be very helpful in increasing their
ability to work or finding work, if it is that part of the
population. I realize SNAP is not just people that are just off
work and need to find a job right away. Is that data robust
enough to do that kind of interface?
Mr. Greenstein. We have a lot of good data on who goes on
SNAP, how long they stay, what are their characteristics, what
are the precipitating factors; the most common is loss of a
job, that leads them to go on. What we don't have at the
present time are really good data on here is the way to design
an employment and training program for SNAP recipients to get
the maximum bang for the buck in helping people move to
employment. That is what we are hoping to learn from the
demonstration project.
Mr. Ashford. I just think that is tremendous. And that is
pretty new, isn't it, I mean this demonstration project?
Mr. Greenstein. It hasn't even started yet.
Mr. Ashford. I know. This is new. I understand it hasn't
started. We have gone through that. It hasn't started, but it
hasn't been tried that much either. This is something
relatively new in the food stamp area. So this is a very good
idea. The information from that the Washington State program,
for example, and other states that have similar kinds of
projects that can pick up on this, is pretty exciting. If we
can utilize a program like SNAP, not necessarily to design a
program to get people off of food stamps, but to design a
program that interfaces well with other programs and local
agencies, whether it be housing or whatever it is, healthcare.
One of the ironies in Nebraska, we did not pass Medicaid
expansion, which was unfortunate. Some of my colleagues most
likely would disagree with me. But, basically, as you try to
find enough work to get on an exchange so that you qualify for
the exchange and get out of the donut hole, then you don't get
food stamps, and then you don't get childcare. Every time there
is an action, there is a reaction going on in government. It is
not so much that we reduce the size of government, it is that
we make government work better for our citizens, and it seems
to me that that partially could result in a reduction in the
size of government. They obviously can do that. So I don't
know, Mr. Besharov----
Mr. Besharov. Well, I just wanted to add a note of caution
about these pilots. The Congress has been disappointed many
times about the results of research, not because they didn't
dislike the results--the answer. Some of the job training
programs have taken 6, 7 and 8 years, right----
Mr. Ashford. Right.
Mr. Besharov.--to get our results. I don't think this
Committee would be very happy to look at the timeline of when
these data are going to come out. And when they come out, there
is going to be major questions about the quality of the
research and this and that. There will be an important addition
to our knowledge, but too often I have seen us be too
disappointed about the results of demonstrations, no matter how
promising they look.
Mr. Ashford. Maybe this one will be a better one, and we
can put it on steroids and get it done faster. Sorry.
Mr. Greenstein. I am also told that some states actually
have built longitudinal databases that supplement the Federal
data----
Mr. Ashford. Right.
Mr. Greenstein.--with regard to SNAP participants. So in
some individual states, we can get even richer data.
Mr. Ashford. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time.
Well, gentlemen, it looks like you have worn us out
completely. I appreciate both of you being here this morning,
and the cordial way in which you addressed each other, and the
reaction to the questions. This is just the start of a long
process. Mrs. Walorski will have a hearing tomorrow at 1
o'clock, the first Subcommittee hearing on this issue, and we
intend to continue to flesh these thoughts out and look forward
to your continued participation in our conversations. So thank
you very much.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 days to receive additional
material and supplementary written responses from the witnesses
to any questions posed by a Member.
This hearing on the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(SNAP RECIPIENT CHARACTERISTICS AND DYNAMICS)
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Nutrition,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:12 p.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jackie
Walorski [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Walorski, Neugebauer,
Gibbs, Crawford, Hartzler, Benishek, Davis, Yoho, Rouzer,
Abraham, Moolenaar, Conaway (ex officio), McGovern, Adams,
Lujan Grisham, Aguilar, Plaskett, Ashford, and DelBene.
Staff present: Anne DeCesaro, Jackie Barber, Ted Monoson,
Haley Graves, Jessica Carter, Lisa Shelton, Robert Larew, Andy
Baker, Liz Friedlander, John Konya, and Nicole Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE WALORSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM INDIANA
The Chairwoman. This hearing of the Committee on
Agriculture, Subcommittee on Nutrition, to review SNAP
characteristics and dynamics, will come to order.
Good afternoon, and welcome to this year's first meeting of
the Nutrition Subcommittee. I appreciate all of you being here.
I appreciate our other Members coming as they finish voting.
Today, I would like to give you a glimpse of what lies
ahead for this Subcommittee over the next 2 years as we review
SNAP.
Before we begin, I want to take just a quick opportunity
for everyone here to understand my background and why this
issue and this Subcommittee is important to me personally.
First and foremost, I am a lifelong Hoosier. I have dedicated
my career to helping Hoosier families. After I married my
husband, we made the decision to move to Romania, in Eastern
Europe, where we created and ran a local foundation and spent 4
years providing resources to impoverished children across that
country. I know what poverty looks like, both internationally,
and what it looks like in my own district, Indiana's Second
District, and how it affects families and communities. And when
I read that one in six Americans are hungry, it reaffirmed my
commitment to ensure that no child or adult endures what I have
seen others go through.
In order for us to be successful, it is imperative that we
first review the SNAP program to better understand what works
and what doesn't work.
The full Committee yesterday examined why a review of SNAP
is important. It is the largest feeding program in both the
number of recipients and the amount of spending, yet the
program lacks a clear mission and the data seems to show us
that it is doesn't necessarily support families coming out
poverty, and it is not necessarily helping lift people into
better circumstances. It is my hope and expectation that this
Subcommittee, along with the work done at the full Committee,
will explore and gain a better understanding of the entire
program; specifically, its recipients, to find unmet needs and
areas of overlap.
The SNAP program does not function by itself and many other
factors contribute to its ultimate success. That is why it is
so important that this Subcommittee focus our efforts on
understanding how SNAP can best serve families and children
across the United States. What is very clear to me, and what I
hope becomes clear to you in the coming months, are the many
layers of bureaucracy that does exist inside of SNAP. Currently
18 different programs provide food assistance, and while many
of them do not fall within this Committee's jurisdiction, they
do serve SNAP recipients. In addition, a range of low-income
benefit programs are offered at the local, state and Federal
levels. On top of that, a web of nonprofits and community
service providers do exist to provide assistance.
While I recognize the government's role in this process,
there are incredible local organizations in my district, like
St. Margaret's House and the Food Bank of Northern Indiana,
that help to feed Hoosiers in my district and provide support
to families and children in need. This is why understanding the
overlap between the myriad of programs will help us decide how
to best provide support and services to families in need. In
the coming months we will be able to tackle these issues and
more, but today is about understanding those families in need;
who they are, what has brought them to the program, how long
they have remained in the program so that we better understand
how to serve them.
Today is not about policy recommendations; it is about
understanding the diverse characteristics and dynamics of the
more than 46 million Americans who receive benefits from this
program each month. Over the coming months, our review will
include a range of stakeholder perspectives, including current
and former recipients, not-for-profits, states, localities, the
food industry, and nutrition experts, to name a few.
Today we will hear from a panel of distinguished
researchers who have all conducted well-documented studies
using trusted government data sources. In most cases, the
research has been funded by the Department of Agriculture's
Food and Nutrition Service, which oversees the administration
of SNAP.
I want all the Members to know that I am always available
if you want to offer any input as we move forward with this
process. I thank all of our witnesses for being here with us
today. I look forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Walorski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jackie Walorski, a Representative in
Congress from Indiana
Good afternoon and welcome to this year's first meeting of the
Nutrition Subcommittee. Thank you all for making time in your schedules
to be here and thank you to today's witnesses for your participation.
Today, I would like to give you a glimpse of what lies ahead for
this Subcommittee over the next 2 years as we review the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
Before we begin, I want to take an opportunity for everyone here to
understand my background and why this issue and this Subcommittee is
important to me.
First and foremost, I am a lifelong Hoosier and I have dedicated my
career to helping Hoosier families.
After I married my husband, we made the decision to move to Romania
where we created and ran a local foundation and spent 4 years providing
resources to impoverished children across the country.
I know what starvation looks like and how it affects families and
communities.
And when I read that one in six Americans is hungry, it reaffirmed
my commitment to ensure no child or adult endures what I've seen others
go through.
In order for us to be successful, it's imperative that we first
understand what works and doesn't within SNAP.
The full Committee yesterday examined why a review of SNAP is so
important--it's the largest welfare program in both the number of
recipients and the amount of spending, yet the program lacks a clear
mission and the data reveals that it is not helping lift people out of
poverty.
It is my hope and expectation that this Subcommittee, along with
work done at the full Committee, will explore and gain a better
understanding of the entire program and specifically its recipients to
find unmet needs and areas of overlap.
The SNAP program does not function by itself and many other factors
contribute to its ultimate success.
That's why it's so important that this Committee focus our efforts
on understanding how SNAP can best serve families and children across
the United States.
What's very clear to me, and what I hope becomes clear to you in
the coming months, are the many aspects to SNAP.
Currently 18 different programs provide food assistance, and while
many of them do not fall within this Committee's jurisdiction, they do
serve SNAP recipients.
In addition, a range of low-income benefit programs are offered at
the local, state and Federal levels. On top of that, a web of
nonprofits and community service providers exist to provide assistance.
While I recognize the government's role in this process, there are
wonderful local organizations, like St. Margaret's House and the Food
Bank of Northern Indiana that help to feed Hoosiers in my district and
provide support to families and children in need.
This is why understanding the overlap between the myriad of
programs will help us decide how to best provide support and services
to families in need.
In the coming months we'll be able to tackle these issues and more.
But today is about understanding those families in need. Who they
are, what has brought them to the program, and how long they have
remained in the program so we better understand how to serve them.
Today is not about policy recommendations; it's about understanding
the diverse characteristics and dynamics of the more than 46 million
Americans who receive benefits from this program each month.
Over the coming months, our review will include a range of
stakeholder perspectives, including current and former recipients;
nonprofits, states and localities, the food industry, and nutrition
experts to name a few.
Today we will hear from a panel of distinguished researchers who
have all conducted well-documented studies using trusted government
data sources.
In most cases, the research has been funded by the Department of
Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service, which oversees the
administration of SNAP.
I thank all of our witnesses for being here with us today and look
forward to their testimony.
The Chairwoman.I would now like to recognize Ranking Member
McGovern for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Walorski, and
congratulations on chairing your first hearing of this
Subcommittee.
I want to start by thanking you in particular for reaching
out to me beforehand, and setting up a time for us to get
together to know each other and to chat. I really appreciated
the gesture. And I look forward to working with you on hunger
and nutrition issues. All too often around here, Members talk
at each other rather than with each other, and I am glad to say
that we are off to a much more productive start.
I also want to thank the witnesses for being here today
with us. As I said at yesterday's hearing, I am a little
surprised that we are starting the first top-to-bottom review
of programs within the Committee's jurisdiction with SNAP, a
program whose caseloads and spending are going down, according
to CBO. I hope we exercise the same rigorous oversight on farm
subsidies to big agribusiness, payments that CBO projections
indicate could end up costing us nearly $5 billion more than
expected in the farm bill.
I want to ask my colleagues to remember just how poor you
must be to qualify for SNAP. Approximately 92 percent of SNAP's
benefits go to households with monthly incomes below the
poverty line, and 57 percent go to households with incomes
below \1/2\ the poverty line. For a family of three, the
poverty line is about $1,650 per month. So that is not a lot of
money. SNAP eligibility requirements are tough, even if you are
poor, and the program has one of the lowest error rates of any
Federal program. The bottom line is that SNAP works.
I hope today's hearing builds upon some of the overarching
themes that came up yesterday. In particular, we need to
address one of the biggest flaws in our social safety net, the
so-called cliff. This happens when someone gets a job, but
earns so little but they still lose their benefits and end up
worse off. And if we really want to move people out of poverty
for good, we ought to begin by raising the Federal minimum
wage. Many of these issues are outside the purview of this
Committee, which is why I am asking the White House to hold a
White House conference on food, nutrition and hunger. We should
bring people together from different Federal agencies,
businesses, nonprofits, faith-based organizations,
beneficiaries, and so on, to come up with a holistic plan to
end hunger, a roadmap that we can follow with real benchmarks.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I thank
the Chairwoman for holding this hearing.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
The chair would now like to recognize Chairman Conaway for
his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. Conaway. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate
that.
I don't have a lot to say other than to quote that wise
sage, Pete Sessions. He said, ``Always make a big deal of
making the big deal the big deal.'' And nutrition, this review
and the efforts that we are going to put in on getting these
policies correct is the big deal. You can look at the makeup of
the Committee with the Vice Chairman and the other Subcommittee
Chairman that are on this Committee, and to me, this is the big
deal, and I have the right person in the chair to lead this
effort, and I look forward to her work.
We did have some interesting comments yesterday. The idea
that this program has morphed over time into an income support
program, more than it is a calorie provision program, and the
other side issues that America faces with child obesity and
adult obesity and other things, I am looking forward to seeing
how we can find the right policies to address the issues that
are under our jurisdiction. And I have great confidence in this
Subcommittee's work, and look forward to seeing that happen.
And I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Chairman Conaway.
The chair will request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin
their testimony to ensure there is ample time for questions.
The chair would like to notify Members that they will be
recognized for questioning in order of seniority for Members
who were here at the start of the hearing. After that, Members
will be recognized in order of arrival. I appreciate Members'
understanding.
Witnesses are reminded to limit their oral statements to 5
minutes. All the written statements will be included in the
record.
And with that, I would like to welcome the witnesses to our
table today--to our hearing table. Ms. Karen Cunnyngham, Senior
Researcher, Mathematica Policy Research; Dr. Gregory Mills,
Senior Fellow, Urban Institute; Dr. James Ziliak, Founding
Director, Center for Poverty Research, University of Kentucky;
Mr. Stephen Tordella, President, Decision Demographics.
Ms. Cunnyngham, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF KAREN CUNNYNGHAM, SENIOR RESEARCHER, MATHEMATICA
POLICY RESEARCH, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Cunnyngham. Thank you, Chairwoman Walorski, Ranking
Member McGovern, and Members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify today.
As you know, SNAP is the central component of the nation's
nutrition safety net. In Fiscal Year 2014, it provided benefits
to 46.5 million people in an average month, slightly down from
Fiscal Year 2013.
Today, I will describe the set of resources you can use to
gain a deeper understanding of the SNAP population. These
include Mathematica's new SNAP data visualization, reports we
produce for FNS on the characteristics of SNAP households, and
the data and computer models used by FNS to examine proposed
changes to SNAP. I will use these tools to highlight
information about SNAP and the characteristics of the SNAP
population.
The SNAP data visualization tool presents complex data in
an easy to understand interactive format. Could we have the
visual on that? Thank you. Are we good?
The Chairwoman. No, hang on one second. This is like a
technical timeout.
Voice. If you have binoculars I might need them.
The Chairwoman. I have bifocals. Let us just go off the
record.
Ms. Cunnyngham. I think it is ready now. Thank you.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* During the witness's testimony a short video demonstration was
played.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SNAP data visualization tool presents complex data in
an easy to understand interactive format. In the SNAP overview
module, we can compare SNAP participation since 1969 with
participation in other government programs like the School
Lunch Program, WIC, and Unemployment Compensation. We can also
compare expenditures on SNAP with expenditures for the other
programs. In the SNAP participation module, we can compare
poverty, SNAP eligibility, and SNAP participation across
states. Here we see a comparison of states by the percentage of
people with income under 200 percent of poverty. We can
contrast that with state estimates of the percentage of people
who are eligible for SNAP. Clicking on a particular state
provides an easy way to compare poverty, eligibility and
participation within the state.
I encourage you to explore this tool, and hope you find it
helpful in your examination of SNAP.
Another important resource is FNS's series of annual
reports on the characteristics of SNAP households, the latest
of which is for Fiscal Year 2013. The reports include a wealth
of information about SNAP and SNAP participants at both the
national and state levels. For instance, the report provides
detailed information about SNAP eligibility rules. This
includes income and asset standards, allowable deductions, and
non-financial eligibility restrictions. The report also
describes how states have some leeway to establish their own
income and asset eligibility criteria. For example, many states
use a TANF-funded, noncash benefit to confer categorical
eligibility on a large number of low income households. States
who do this have established income limits, and in some cases,
asset limits for households to receive the TANF-funded benefit.
Benefits for these households are determined using household
income, and the same rules that apply to other eligible
households.
In addition to describing eligibility criteria, the report
contains data on the varied characteristics of SNAP
participants. For instance, readers can see how average monthly
SNAP benefits vary by household composition. This is also
graphically shown on page 5 of my written testimony. In Fiscal
Year 2013, the average benefit for households with an elderly
person was $134, compared to an average $410 for households
with a child. The report on SNAP household characteristics also
illustrates how SNAP targets benefits to the neediest
households. As shown on page 7 of my testimony, 43 percent of
SNAP households have monthly incomes at or below 50 percent of
the poverty guideline. These households receive 57 percent of
all SNAP benefits. In contrast, five percent of SNAP households
have monthly income over 130 percent of the poverty guideline.
They received only one percent of SNAP benefits.
The report further shows that 75 percent of SNAP households
included a child, an elderly person, or a person with a
disability. These households received 82 percent of SNAP
benefits.
The numerous appendix tables show how the characteristics
of SNAP households vary across states. For example, state
percentages of SNAP households with monthly incomes at or below
50 percent of the poverty guidelines ranged from a low of 24
percent in Vermont to a high of 67 percent in California.
This is just a small sample of the information available
from the report, which I hope you find a valuable resource.
Even more information can be gleaned from the SNAP QC data upon
which the report is based. This edited database is publicly
available via the Department of Agriculture's website. The data
also form the basis for one of the sophisticated SNAP
microsimulation models FNS and Mathematica have worked together
to develop. These models are designed to simulate the effected
proposed policy changes on household eligibility and predicted
participation and on SNAP benefit costs. These tools and the
data they present can contribute to an understanding of how
SNAP has been operating, and can provide a foundation for
discussion and consideration of potential changes to the
program.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cunnyngham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Karen Cunnyngham, Senior Researcher, Mathematica
Policy Research, Washington, D.C.
Thank you, Chairwoman Jackie Walorski, Ranking Member Jim McGovern,
and Members of the Subcommittee on Nutrition for the opportunity to
testify on the characteristics of the population served by the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--also known as SNAP.
I am a senior researcher at Mathematica Policy Research and the
director of a project that measures SNAP program access, trends, and
impacts. As part of this project--which is conducted for the Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) at the United States Department of
Agriculture--Mathematica develops and maintains SNAP microsimulation
models; prepares the edited SNAP quality control (QC), data files; and
produces reports on the characteristics of SNAP households.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joshua Leftin is deputy director of the project and Kelsey
Farson Gray authored the most recent report on SNAP household
characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP is a central component of the nation's nutrition safety net
that serves a broad spectrum of the needy population. According to SNAP
program operations data, SNAP provided benefits to 46.5 million people
in an average month in Fiscal Year 2014, slightly down from 47.6
million people in an average month in Fiscal Year 2013. The average
monthly benefit in Fiscal Year 2014 was also down to $125 per person
from $133 per person in Fiscal Year 2013.
In this testimony, I describe a set of resources that Congress can
use to gain a deeper understanding of the SNAP population. These
include (1) Mathematica's new SNAP participation data visualization;
(2) a series of reports we have produced for FNS on the characteristics
of SNAP households; and, briefly, (3) the FNS data and computer models
we use to simulate proposed changes to SNAP. I also use these tools to
highlight information about SNAP eligibility standards and the
characteristics of the SNAP population, both nationally and across
states.
A Digital Exploration of SNAP
The characteristics of SNAP participants and households and their
levels of participation in SNAP change over time in response to
economic and demographic trends, as well as to legislative adjustments
to program rules. Mathematica has developed a data visualization tool
that presents complex data about the SNAP population in an intuitive,
interactive format. Using this dynamic tool, researchers, policymakers,
and other stakeholders can examine SNAP participation over time and
across populations. They can also compare SNAP participation with other
programs and economic trends. The tool aggregates SNAP data into three
modules, two of which are particularly relevant to our testimony today:
Users can compare SNAP participation and expenditures since
1969 with those for other government programs such as the
National School Lunch Program, the Special Supplemental Program
for Women, Infants, and Children, and Unemployment
Compensation. Expenditures for both SNAP and Unemployment
Compensation rose steeply from 2008 to 2009. Expenditures for
SNAP continued to rise steeply for several years after 2009,
while expenditures for Unemployment Compensation dropped
sharply.
A Digital Exploration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP)
Since it began more than 50 years ago, the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has provided nutrition
assistance to millions of low-income individuals and families
nationwide. Mathematica Policy Research has studied nutrition
policies and programs for more than 2 decades and, with funding
from the Food and Nutrition Service, recently completed the
largest-ever survey of SNAP participants on the topic of food
security (defined as reliable access to enough food to lead an
active, and healthy life). We put these findings into context
in our new interactive tool, which provides an overview of
SNAP, the results of our study, and SNAP participation and
eligibility rates by state. Navigate through each module by
clicking on a circle below. (This tool is best viewed in IE10+,
Chrome, Mozilla.)
Participants and Expenditures of Government Programs Over Time
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In the SNAP participation module, users can compare poverty,
SNAP eligibility, and SNAP participation across states. For
instance, a comparison of states by the percentage of people
with income under 200 percent of poverty can be contrasted with
state estimates of the percentage of people who are eligible
for SNAP. Clicking on a particular state provides an easy way
to compare poverty, eligibility, and participation within the
state.
Although not covered in my testimony today, a third module depicts
findings from a recent Mathematica study that examined the relationship
between SNAP participation and food security.\2\ I encourage you to
explore this tool and hope you find it useful in your examination of
the SNAP population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mabli, James, Jim Ohls, Lisa Dragoset, Laura Castner, and Betsy
Santos. ``Measuring the Effect of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) Participation on Food Security.'' Prepared by
Mathematica Policy Research for the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service, August 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports on the Characteristics of SNAP Households
Another important resource is FNS' series of annual reports titled
Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Households, which date back to 1976. These reports include a wealth of
information about the program and current participants at both the
national and state levels. I highlight some details about SNAP
eligibility standards and the SNAP population from the most recent
report for Fiscal Year 2013 (Farson Gray 2014) in the narrative that
follows.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Farson Gray, Kelsey. ``Characteristics of Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2013''. Report
submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, December 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal SNAP Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for SNAP under
the standard Federal rules, households without an elderly or disabled
member must have a monthly gross income at or below 130 percent of the
Federal poverty guideline and countable assets of no more than $2,250.
Households with elderly or disabled members are exempt from the gross
income limit and may have up to $3,250 in countable assets. All SNAP
households must have a monthly net income at or below the Federal
poverty guideline. Net income is calculated by subtracting from gross
income a standard deduction as well as deductions for, among others,
earned income, excess shelter expenses, and medical expenses--the
latter of which is available only to households with elderly or
disabled members.
Monthly income limits and the standard deduction vary by household
size and location. Currently the gross income limit for a family of
four in the contiguous United States is $2,584, the net income limit is
$1,988, and the standard deduction is $165. The maximum deduction for
excess shelter expenses in the contiguous United States for households
without elderly or disabled members is $490.
Countable assets include most liquid resources and some non-liquid
resources. Family homes and retirement and educational savings accounts
are not counted toward the resource limit. Vehicles with very low
equity and those meeting certain other specific criteria are also
excluded from the resource test. For one vehicle per adult and per
teenager driving to work or school, any fair market value in excess of
$4,650 is counted toward the resource limit. Of the household's
remaining vehicles, the higher of either any fair market value in
excess of $4,650 or any equity is counted.
SNAP households in which all members receive SSI, Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or General Assistance benefits
are categorically eligible for SNAP and, therefore, not subject to the
Federal income and resource limits. Benefits for these households are
determined under the same rules that apply to other eligible SNAP
households and are based on household income.
State SNAP Eligibility Options. In some instances, states are
permitted to establish eligibility criteria that work best for their
jurisdictions. For example, they may use vehicle rules for a TANF-
funded program in place of SNAP rules, if they are less restrictive.
For SNAP households that face an asset test, all but four states
(Delaware, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Washington) and one territory
(the Virgin Islands) have aligned their vehicle rules with those for
another state program. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia
have aligned their vehicle rules with programs that exclude all
vehicles from the resource test.
States also have the option to confer categorical eligibility on
additional households receiving benefits that are at least in part
funded by TANF or Maintenance of Effort funds. States have flexibility
in setting the criteria for receiving the TANF-funded noncash benefit,
including establishing a gross income limit and either eliminating the
resource test or establishing a higher resource limit. Forty states,
the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands provide a
noncash benefit to confer categorical eligibility on a large number of
households. Of these, five states (Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska,
Pennsylvania, and Texas) impose resource limits between $5,000 and
$25,000, while the rest have eliminated the resource test. Fourteen
states retained the Federal gross income limit for most households
without an elderly or disabled member, 28 states or territories raised
the gross income limit to between 160 percent and 200 percent of the
Federal poverty limit for those households, and one state, New
Hampshire, raised the gross income limit for households with a child
age 21 or younger.
In some states, households participating in narrowly targeted,
noncash TANF-funded programs, such as work support, child care, and
other short-term assistance, may also be categorically eligible for
SNAP.
Benefit determination. After a household is certified for SNAP, its
monthly benefit is computed by subtracting 30 percent of the
household's net income from the maximum benefit amount to which it is
entitled. Currently, the maximum monthly SNAP benefit for a family of
four in the contiguous United States is $649. All eligible one-person
and two-person households are guaranteed a minimum benefit, which is
currently $16.
In Fiscal Year 2013, 41 percent of SNAP households received the
maximum benefit and five percent received the minimum benefit. The
average monthly SNAP benefit was $271. SNAP households with children
received a relatively high average benefit of $410, while households
with elderly individuals received a relatively low one of $134. One
reason for the difference in average benefits is the difference in
average household size: 3.2 people for SNAP households with children,
compared with 1.3 people for households with elderly individuals. SNAP
households that include a nonelderly adult with a disability had an
average monthly SNAP benefit of $204 and households with no elderly
individuals, individuals with disabilities, or children had an average
benefit of $195.
Average SNAP Benefit
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Note: These groups are not mutually exclusive.
Source: Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Households: Fiscal Year 2013 (Farson Gray 2014).
Nonfinancial Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for SNAP,
individuals must also meet non-financial eligibility standards. For
example, unauthorized immigrants, nonimmigrant visitors to the United
States, and some lawful permanent resident noncitizens, are
categorically ineligible for SNAP. However, lawful permanent resident
noncitizens are potentially eligible for SNAP benefits if they (1) have
lived legally in the United States for 5 years or more; (2) are
children; (3) receive a government benefit because they are blind or
have a disability; or (4) are members of the U.S. armed forces, are
veterans, or are dependents of a service member or veteran. Noncitizens
admitted as refugees are also potentially eligible for SNAP benefits
for up to 7 years. The income and resources of ineligible noncitizens
are considered in the eligibility determination of other SNAP household
members. In Fiscal Year 2013, six percent of SNAP households contained
a noncitizen and six percent contained a citizen child living with a
nonparticipating noncitizen adult. (These groups are not mutually
exclusive.)
In addition, nondisabled adults age 18 to 49 who are living in
households without children can receive benefits only if they work or
participate in qualifying work-related activities. These individuals
can be exempt from the work requirements if they live in a waiver area
or have been granted a discretionary exemption by the state. With
certain exceptions, those not meeting work requirements are restricted
to 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 36 month period. Approximately
ten percent of all SNAP participants in Fiscal Year 2013 were
nondisabled adults aged 18 to 49 who were living in households without
children.
Poverty Status of SNAP Households. SNAP effectively targets
benefits to the neediest households. In Fiscal Year 2013, 83 percent of
SNAP households had gross monthly incomes at or below the Federal
poverty guideline. Almost \1/2\ (43 percent) of all SNAP households had
gross monthly incomes at or below 50 percent of the poverty guideline.
These households received 57 percent of all SNAP benefits. In contrast,
only one percent of all benefits went to the five percent of SNAP
households that had gross monthly income over 130 percent of the
poverty guideline. More than \1/2\ of these households contained an
elderly person or a person with a disability and, thus, were not
subject to gross income limits.
Gross Income as a Percentage of Poverty Guidelines
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Households: Fiscal Year 2013 (Farson Gray 2014).
SNAP Household Income. SNAP household income comes from a variety
of sources, both earned and unearned. In Fiscal Year 2013, the average
monthly gross income among all SNAP households was $758. Twenty-two
percent of SNAP households had no gross income when they were certified
or recertified for SNAP. Thirty-one percent had earned income and 57
percent had unearned income. Sources of unearned income included Social
Security (received by 24 percent of SNAP households), SSI (20 percent),
child support (9 percent), TANF (7 percent), and unemployment
compensation (4 percent). After deductions, 39 percent of SNAP
households had no net income and the vast majority of the remainder had
net income under the Federal poverty guideline. After the standard
deduction, the most prevalent deduction was for excess shelter costs,
which was received by 72 percent of SNAP households.
SNAP Household Composition. Individuals who share a residential
dwelling and customarily purchase and prepare food together are
required to apply for SNAP together. Generally, individuals who live
together but do not purchase and prepare food together may apply as
separate SNAP households. However, spouses living together must apply
together and parents must apply with their children (under age 22) who
reside with them.
The average SNAP household size in Fiscal Year 2013 was just over
two people. Fifty-one percent of SNAP households contained just one
person. In over \1/2\ of these households, the single person either had
a disability or was elderly. At the other end of the spectrum, seven
percent of SNAP households had five or more members.
In Fiscal Year 2013, 87 percent of SNAP participants lived in
households with a child, an elderly person, or a person with a
disability--representing 75 percent of all SNAP households. Other key
facts about SNAP household demographics include the following:
Forty-five percent of SNAP households contained children.
These households received 68 percent of all SNAP benefits. The
majority of households with children (57 percent) were single-
adult households. This group accounted for 26 percent of all
SNAP households.
Seventeen percent of SNAP households contained elderly
individuals. Eighty percent of these were single-person
households. Seventy percent received Social Security income, 36
percent received SSI, and 86 percent received income from at
least one of those two sources.
Twenty percent of SNAP households contained nonelderly
individuals with disabilities. Sixty percent of these
households were single-person households. A majority (69
percent) received SSI and \1/2\ (51 percent) received Social
Security income.
Twenty-five percent of SNAP households contained no elderly
individuals, individuals with disabilities, or children. These
households tended to be single-person households (91 percent),
with 59 percent of them having no gross income.
Over 80 percent of SNAP households were in metropolitan
areas. Seven percent of SNAP households were in rural areas.
Household Composition and Benefits Received
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Note: These groups are not mutually exclusive.
Source: Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Households: Fiscal Year 2013 (Farson Gray 2014).
State Comparisons of SNAP Households in FY 2013
The characteristics of SNAP households vary across states.\4\ For
example, at the national level, 17 percent of all SNAP households had
incomes that were above the Federal poverty guideline. Across states,
this percentage ranged from a low of nine percent in California and
Mississippi to a high of 40 percent in Vermont. Similarly, while 43
percent of all SNAP households nationwide had monthly gross incomes
that were less than or equal to 50 percent of the Federal poverty
guideline, state-level percentages ranged from a low of 11 percent in
Maine to a high of 46 percent in the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In this section, ``states'' refers to the District of Columbia,
Guam, and the Virgin Islands as well as the 50 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average SNAP benefits reflect the average state net income and
household size as well as the higher benefits issued in certain high-
cost states and territories. Accordingly, the average SNAP benefit in
Guam in Fiscal Year 2013 of $644 was substantially higher than in any
other state or jurisdiction. Hawaii, Alaska, and the Virgin Islands
also had higher average benefits of $423, $411, and $392, respectively,
than any of the 48 contiguous states. Oregon had the lowest average
SNAP benefit with $223, followed by Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont,
which each averaged $230.
The demographic characteristics of SNAP households also varied by
state and territory. The percentage of SNAP households with children
ranged from a low of 34 percent in Oregon and Connecticut to a high of
68 percent in Guam. The percentage of SNAP households with elderly
members ranged from seven percent in California, where SSI participants
do not receive regular SNAP benefits, to 28 percent in New York. Texas
had the lowest percentage of nondisabled adults aged 18 to 49 living in
childless households with seven percent, while Oregon had the highest
percentage at 30 percent.
SNAP QC Database and SNAP Microsimulation Models
Mathematica's data visualization tool and the SNAP characteristics
report are just two of the resources available to policymakers who
strive to understand more about the program and its participants. For
instance, while the FNS report includes a vast amount of additional
information on the characteristics of SNAP households, even more
information can be gleaned from the database on which the report is
based--the SNAP QC database. It is an edited version of the data
generated by SNAP's Quality Control System, and the database contains
detailed demographic, economic, and SNAP eligibility information for a
nationally representative sample of approximately 50,000 SNAP
households. The data are edited to ensure consistent measures of SNAP
household size, income, deductions, and benefit level. The file is
weighted to match adjusted SNAP program operations data for SNAP
households, participants, and benefits issued by month and state. The
program operations data are adjusted to remove benefits issued in error
or in response to a disaster because these cases are not included in
the SNAP QC database. The adjusted total number of SNAP households and
benefits is lower than program operations data by about one percent and
two percent, respectively. The edited SNAP QC database is publicly
available via the Department of Agriculture's website,\5\ along with
documentation describing the data editing process and containing a
codebook.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-
nutrition-assistance-research/extramural-research/national-data-
sets.aspx
\6\ Filion, Kai, Esa Eslami, Katherine Bencio, and Bruce Schechter.
``Technical Documentation for the Fiscal Year 2013 Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program Quality Control Database and QC
Minimodel''. Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica
Policy Research, October 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another resource is the set of sophisticated SNAP microsimulation
models FNS and Mathematica have worked together to develop. These
models are designed to simulate the effect of various proposed policy
changes to the program on SNAP household eligibility status, benefit
amount, and predicted participation decision. Specifically, SNAP
microsimulation models are used to answer key policy questions,
including the following:
How many households and individuals are eligible for SNAP
benefits under current rules?
How would the number of eligible households and individuals
change if program design parameters--such as income eligibility
limits, asset limits, maximum benefits, or allowable
deductions--were changed?
How would such changes affect estimated participation levels
and program costs?
What effect would such changes have on different subgroups
of participants, such as elderly individuals or workers?
One of FNS' microsimulation models is based on the SNAP QC
database. Another model uses data from the Survey of Income and Program
Participation and incorporates data from the Current Population Survey
Annual Survey of Economic Characteristics. Because microsimulation
models measure differences in eligible households, participating
households, and benefit amounts between the current program and the
program under the simulated policy change, they can provide
policymakers with valuable insights about the potential impacts of
program changes.
Taken together, these resources support evidence-based policy
making through rigorous research, high-quality data, and objective
analysis to help inform decision making for the future of the SNAP
program.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Cunnyngham.
Dr. Mills, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY B. MILLS, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW, URBAN
INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. Mills. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Greg Mills and I am a Senior Fellow at
the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research organization focused
on social and economic policy. I thank you for this opportunity
to describe our recent study on participant churning in SNAP.
We conducted this research for the Food and Nutrition Service.
Any views I express are my own as project director, and should
not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees or its
funders.
Churn occurs when a household receiving SNAP exits the
program, and then reenters within 4 months or less, as defined
by FNS for this research. Some churn is expected, as when a
family briefly becomes ineligible through a temporary increase
in earnings. Churn is a serious concern, however, when the cut-
off in benefits occurs for households that remain eligible, and
especially for households with children or elderly or disabled
members, which includes about \2/3\ of churners.
I will first highlight our major findings, and then turn to
policy implications. The six states that participated in this
study; Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Texas and Virginia,
all provided detailed program data. The rates of SNAP churn for
these states in Fiscal Year 2011 ranged from 17 to 28 percent.
These estimates indicate the percentage of households receiving
SNAP benefits at any time during that year, who experienced at
least one churn spell, that is, a break in participation of 4
months or less. The causes of churn are complex. Fluctuations
in the earnings of SNAP recipients appear to play only a
limited role. In these scenarios of exit and reentry related to
job gains and losses, the program is functioning as it should.
The much larger story, however, relates to the process.
Recipients experience difficulties with required procedures in
periodic recertifications of their eligibility, or when they
are to submit an interim report on household changes. Based on
our focus groups with churners, the difficulties appear to stem
from three types of factors. First, changes in household
circumstances such as a move, a car breakdown, or some other
disruption that caused a recipient to miss a deadline. Second,
challenging personal characteristics relating to physical or
mental health, literacy or language proficiency. Third, a lack
of clarity in agency notices sent to clients, or the failure of
those notices to reach the client.
Churn has financial consequences for both agencies and
households. Agencies incur additional administrative cost to
the extent that the case requires a new application involving
two to three times as much case worker effort as a
recertification. Households lose benefits to the extent that
they remained eligible during their churn spell. The foregone
benefits, although a small percentage of a state's annual
benefit payments can cause significant hardship for the
affected clients. The added agency costs, about two percent of
annual administrative costs in the program, represent potential
budgetary savings.
So what are some of the key underlying patterns of churn in
the states we studied? Two-thirds or more of churners are off
the program for 1 month or less. For a similarly high
proportion of churning households, the exit occurs at a
schedule recertification or interim report. About \1/2\ of all
households that churn appear eligible for SNAP while off the
program, and thus, experienced a loss of benefits. Churners are
much more likely than other recipients to have moved within
state to a new ZIP Code. Households with elderly or disabled
members are more likely than others to churn, when one focuses
specifically on households coming due for recertification.
In closing, I will now turn to some policy implications.
Our evidence suggests that SNAP churn had adverse consequences
to both agencies and households that are sufficient to warrant
policy action. A lower rate of churn is clearly a desirable
goal. It represents an improvement in benefit access and
service quality for recipients. Any program changes, however,
will need to balance improved benefit access with maintaining
program integrity and containing budgetary cost.
In each of the six states, we asked local SNAP
administrators and caseworkers to indicate what aspects of the
program can reduce churn based on their experience. Here are
four of their ideas. First, align a household's recertification
dates for SNAP, TANF and Medicaid. Second, eliminate the
requirement for a face-to-face interview at recertification.
Third, use agency call centers to handle routine client
communications. And fourth, for clients unable to provide
requested documentation, allow a 30 day grace period during
which their benefits could be renewed without a complete
reapplication. These are relatively straightforward procedural
improvements that many states have implemented, and that others
could be encouraged to adopt. Unlike more basic changes in
program eligibility rules, these actions would not require
difficult tradeoffs between access, integrity and cost. This
study provides the systematic evidence needed to consider such
steps.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mills follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory B. Mills, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Urban
Institute, Washington, D.C.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The views expressed are those of the author and should not be
attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding the Rates, Causes, and Costs of Churning in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Greg Mills, and I am a Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute, a
nonprofit research organization focused on social and economic policy.
It is an honor to appear before you to testify about research we have
recently completed on participant churning in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. This research was conducted
under contract to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. The Urban Institute has a long history of
policy research for FNS and other Federal agencies on the effectiveness
of program benefits and services to low-income households. This work
includes extensive research relating to food and nutrition policy, with
many studies focusing on SNAP (formerly Food Stamps). I have been the
project director of the 3 year study I will describe for you today.
This study examines the rates, causes, and costs of participant
churn in SNAP. Churn occurs when a household receiving SNAP exits the
program and then re-enters within 4 months or less, as defined by FNS
for this research. Some churn is to be expected--as when a temporary
increase in earnings makes a family briefly ineligible for assistance.
Churn presents a policy concern, however, when benefits are disrupted
for households who were continuously eligible. In these situations
families lose benefits while off the program, with added time and
expense involved in re-entering. Budgetarily, the pattern of case
closings and reopenings brings higher state and Federal administrative
costs. Importantly, about half of the households who churn are families
with children whose food security is placed at risk.
Six states participated in the study: Florida, Idaho, Illinois,
Maryland, Texas, and Virginia. To enable a systematic analysis of churn
rates and patterns and the associated forgone benefits among churners,
each state provided administrative datasets with detailed information
on households participating in SNAP over the period December 2009
through December 2012. Additionally, data from employer-reported wage
records in Florida were used to examine the role of earnings
fluctuations among SNAP participants as a factor leading to churn. To
explore in greater detail the process of churn and its possible causes,
our research team conducted site visits to one local office in each
state. Team members interviewed SNAP administrators and caseworkers and
representatives of community-based organizations (CBOs); members also
conducted focus groups with SNAP clients who had recently churned. To
support an analysis of the costs associated with churn, the team
obtained from FNS the quarterly financial forms that the six states had
submitted, as with all other states, in reporting their program
administrative costs.
Before providing any further details on the research, I first want
to highlight our major findings, as follows:
Estimated rates of churn across the six participating states
range from 17 to 28 percent for FY 2011. This represents the
percentage of SNAP cases active at any time during that year
that experienced at least one churn spell--that is, a break in
participation of 4 months or less.
The causes of churn are complex. Fluctuations in the earnings
of SNAP recipients appear to play only a limited role. In those
situations, a new job or increased hours at work may properly
lead to a cutoff in benefits, as the household becomes
ineligible (or may believe they're ineligible or that they can
get by without the program). But if this former recipient then
loses the new job, or comes to realize that they're unable to
make ends meet off the program, they may reapply within several
months.
The much larger story, however, is that procedural
difficulties experienced by participants cause churn. These
problems typically occur at the point of a periodic agency
recertification of the household's eligibility or when the
recipient is to submit a required interim report on household
changes that might affect their monthly benefit. Procedural
difficulties appear to stem from a combination of interrelated
factors:
Changes in household circumstances other than earnings,
such as a move or a change in the number of individuals
living and eating together in the household.
Challenging personal characteristics and stressors,
relating to physical or mental health, literacy, or
language proficiency.
Lack of clarity in agency notices sent to clients or the
failure of those notices to reach the client.
Churn has financial consequences to both agencies and
clients. Agencies incur additional administrative costs, as re-
openings require a new application, involving two to three
times as much caseworker effort as a recertification. Clients
lose benefits to the extent that churners have remained
benefit-eligible during their churn spell. These estimated
effects are small in proportional terms, in the range of one to
five percent of annual administrative costs or annual benefit
payments. The forgone benefits do, however, cause significant
hardship for the affected clients.
The added agency costs represent a potential saving of both
Federal and state administrative costs, if churn can be
reduced.
I'll now provide additional detail on the research, focusing on the
following four areas: first, on the rates and patterns of churn;
second, on staff, client, and community perspectives on churn; third,
on specific household characteristics and circumstances associated with
churn; and fourth, on the financial consequences of churn, in costs to
agencies and in benefits lost to clients. I will then turn to the
implications of this research for program policy.
How do the rates and patterns of churn differ by state?
As shown in Figure 1, the estimated rates of churn for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, ranging from 17 to 28 percent across the
six states, are based on analysis of state-provided case-level
SNAP participation data. The annual rate of churn is the number
of households experiencing a churn spell that occurred wholly
or partly within the year as a percentage of all households
receiving SNAP benefits at any time during the year.
Most churners (from 62 to 79 percent by state) are off the
program for 1 month or less. See Table 1. More detailed
analysis in three of these states indicates that \1/3\ or more
of all churners are off the program for less than 1 month.
For a very high proportion of churning households (ranging
by state from 66 to 90 percent), the precipitating exit occurs
at the time of a scheduled recertification or a required
interim report. See Figure 2.
Approximately \1/3\ to \1/2\ of all households that churn
(from 33 to 53 percent among the states) were likely benefit-
eligible while off the program, and thus experienced a loss of
benefits they were entitled to receive. See Table 2. This is
based on their case not having been closed for a specific
reason of ineligibility, with no change in their household
composition and little or no change in their income between
exit and re-entry. Those off the program for 1 month or less
are somewhat more likely than other churners to have been
benefit-eligible.
What are the perspectives on SNAP churn among clients, agencies,
and community-based organizations?
SNAP clients who have recently churned indicated in focus
groups that they experienced a great deal of anxiety when they
lost their SNAP benefits, even if for a short period, as the
benefit loss was unexpected. Some clients first became aware
that their benefits had been stopped when they were attempting
to purchase groceries.
In addition to experiencing food insecurity, the loss of
benefits led to broader financial insecurity for SNAP churners.
In having to commit more of their scarce income for food,
churners were less able to pay important bills such as their
utilities or rent.
Churn sometimes occurred when SNAP clients got a new job
that was lost quickly owing to illness or lack of child care.
In related instances, churn occurred when the household's
income went up for short period because of seasonal employment
or overtime pay.
Procedural issues often led to churn. The most frequently
cited example was nonresponse to a recertification notice.
Sometimes a SNAP client simply did not receive the notice
because it was sent to the wrong address or the client never
informed the agency of an address change. Other times, clients
never responded because they were experiencing personal
difficulties, they did not understand the notice, they were
unable to use the online resources, or they were unable to
respond in person because of transportation issues.
SNAP workers and CBO representatives described changes in
policy or procedure that they believed could reduce churn.
These steps were generally aimed at either reducing the client
burden at recertification or providing more responsive customer
service.
What specific household characteristics and circumstances are
associated with churning?
The types of SNAP households more likely to churn within a
given year are those with household heads who are younger or
black, with more members, and with neither elderly, disabled,
nor child members, all other things equal.
Regarding the presence of income, the households at greatest
risk of churn are those with gross income above 100 percent of
the poverty level and those with no earned or unearned income
at all. These two distinct high-risk groups suggest very
different storylines for churners: one that involves gaining
more income and leaving SNAP because of benefit ineligibility
(or perceived ineligibility) and one that involves leaving SNAP
as a result of procedural noncompliance, stemming from
challenging individual and household circumstances and
complicating aspects of the recertification process or required
interim reports.
Pre- and post-churn earnings patterns as shown in SNAP case
records and as reported by employers in quarterly wage data
(available for this study only in Florida) provide little
indication that changes in earnings are a significant cause of
churn, particularly among those who churn for 1 month or less.
Although local-area characteristics appear to have small
effects on churn, households are more likely to churn if their
area has more per-capita community food providers (such as food
pantries). These may be high-poverty areas where both clients
and agencies are challenged to keep pace with required
reporting, notices, and casework.
Compared to non-churners, households that churn tend to have
experienced changes in circumstances that could affect their
ability to recertify. For instance, churners are much more
likely than non-churners to have moved within state to a new
ZIP Code before a recertification. (Out-of-state moves were not
observable in the data.) The disruption of moving may make it
more difficult to comply with recertification procedures. Or,
participants who move may be less likely to receive notice of
an upcoming recertification, as they may not have reported
their address change to the SNAP office (or did so, but the
agency did not act on the change).
Other changes associated with churn at recertification
include changes in household composition, employment, and
earnings. All these factors could affect benefit eligibility,
but the low gross earnings amounts indicated in the SNAP case
records suggest that household instability (versus
ineligibility) plays a key role in churn. With respect to
household composition, any change (upward or downward) in
household size (number of adults or children) increases the
likelihood of churn.
Households with elderly or disabled members are less likely
than others to churn within the ensuing year, as their longer
certification periods make them less likely than others to face
a recertification or required interim report in the upcoming 12
months. When one focuses specifically on households coming due
for recertification, households with elderly or disabled
members are more likely than others to churn. This pattern
suggests that improvements to the recertification process
itself (rather than any further lengthening of their
certification periods) are needed for such cases.
What costs are associated with churn, for both agencies and
clients?
Churn imposes costs both to program clients and to agencies
administering the program. For agencies, churn increases costs
by requiring agencies to process additional applications from
households reentering the program. For clients, costs include
the loss of benefits that they otherwise would have received,
the administrative burdens involved in the steps taken to
reenter the program, and other burdens related to coping during
the period without benefits.
Churn imposes added certification costs because
reapplications for households returning to the program take
more staff time than recertifications. Staff interview
responses suggest that the reapplication procedures for
churners at reentry are essentially the same as for an initial
application for benefits. The time required to process the
reapplication is typically two to three times as much as a
recertification or interim report. One thus expects that churn
would lead to a net increase in the staff time spent on
certification-related activities.
On average among the six states, the certification costs
associated with churn are approximately $80 for each instance
of churn requiring a full reapplication. This amount varies
widely among states, from less than $30 to more than $130.
These estimates are based on analysis of statewide
administrative cost data and churn spells identified using
administrative datasets, and they reflect the assumption that a
full reapplication is twice as costly as a recertification.
Higher estimates of the added costs of churn result if one
assumes that a reapplication is three times the cost of a
recertification.
The added annual certification costs associated with churn
range from $0.1 million in Idaho to $6.0 million in Illinois,
equaling an estimated one to four percent of total
certification costs in the states studied. To derive these
estimates, we applied the certification cost per instance of
churn to the number of instances of churn in each state for
households considered likely benefit-eligible and where churn
appears to have led to a full reapplication.
Churn also leads to a partial cost offset through a
reduction in case maintenance costs. This is associated with
the time spent off the program by churning households that are
classified as likely benefit-eligible. When combined with the
added certification costs, the estimated net administrative
costs of churn for states range annually from $0.1 million in
Idaho to $3.9 million in Illinois.
The annual amount of SNAP benefits forgone by households
that churn ranges from $2.2 million in Idaho to $108.2 million
in Florida. These estimates assign a benefit loss only to those
households considered likely benefit-eligible during their
churn spell.
Other notable costs to churning households are not included
in the above estimate of forgone benefits. Households who churn
must devote time and effort to reapply for SNAP benefits or
otherwise rectify the situation that led to their case closure.
They also face material hardship when they do not receive SNAP
benefits, relating not only to shortages of food but also to
housing insecurity (which can occur when rent money must be
used for food), an inability to meet other basic expenses, and
a general increase in anxiety and stress. In addition, some of
the steps that they take to cope with the loss of benefits
involve out-of-pocket costs, such as the travel cost to food
pantries.
Policy Implications
The quantitative and qualitative evidence examined in this research
suggests that SNAP churn has adverse consequences to agencies and
clients that are sufficient to warrant consideration of actions to
reduce churn. One should recognize that some amount of churn is
unavoidable in light of fluctuating circumstances among low-income
households. Decisions on whether to adopt changes in program policy or
administrative procedure to reduce churn will involve trade-offs among
multiple objectives: program integrity, benefit access, and budgetary
cost. A lower rate of churn is clearly a desirable goal; it represents
an improvement in benefit access and service quality for program
clients. A lower churn rate may be very difficult to achieve, however,
without some risk of compromising other objectives, such as maintaining
low error rates and keeping total program costs within budget
constraints. The information in this study is a first step in providing
the systematic evidence needed to inform such choices.
The perspectives of local SNAP administrators and caseworkers are
noteworthy, as they were asked to comment on aspects of program and
policy that can reduce churn, based on their experience. Here were some
of the factors they cited as enabling them to prevent churn:
Align the recertification dates for SNAP, TANF, and
Medicaid. A SNAP client receiving multiple benefits then faces
fewer recertification deadlines over the course of a year.
Eliminate the requirement for a face-to-face interview at
recertification. As permitted under state option, clients can
be interviewed by telephone or by designated community-based
organizations (such as food banks) rather than having to visit
the SNAP office.
Use call centers to handle routine client communications
with the agency. This enables clients to notify the agency of
an address change, to clarify information provided in a written
notice from the agency, and to inquire about the status of a
pending recertification, including whether the agency is
awaiting documentation from the client.
Allow clients a ``30 day grace period'' for failing to
provide required documentation at recertification or an interim
report (as allowed at state option under a ``break-in-service''
or ``re-instatement of eligibility'' waiver from FNS). If
clients miss a deadline, they are allowed 30 additional days to
submit documentation without having to go through a complete
reapplication to renew their benefits. At a minimum, this would
reduce the agency administrative costs and client burden
associated with restoring benefits.
We were unable to assess the impact of such program changes on
rates of churn, as the study states did not provide opportunities for
before-and-after measurement. However, these are relatively
straightforward procedural improvements that many states have
implemented and that, unlike more basic changes in program eligibility
rules, would not require difficult tradeoffs on matters of integrity,
access, and cost.
Figure 1. Rate of Churn by State, FY 2011 (%)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Urban Institute tabulations of state administrative
data for FY 2011.
Note: The rate of churn is the percentage of households
receiving SNAP benefits at any time during the year who
experienced at least one break in participation of 4 months or
less that started and/or ended during the year.
Table 1. Distribution of Churners by Months off SNAP, FY 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Churners by months off SNAP (%)
---------------------------------------------------
State One month Three
or less Two months months Four months
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida 74 11 8 7
Idaho 62 15 12 11
Illinois 67 19 8 6
Maryland 68 15 9 8
Texas 79 10 7 5
Virginia 77 9 7 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Urban Institute tabulations of state administrative data for FY
2011.
Figure 2. Among Cases that Churn, Percentage that Churn at
Recertification or Required Interim Report
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Urban Institute tabulations of state administrative
data for FY 2011.
Table 2. Distribution of Churners by Likely SNAP Benefit Eligibility During Time Off SNAP: All Churners and
Churners with One Month or Less off SNAP, FY 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All churners (%) Churn spell of 1 month or less (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Likely Likely Likely Likely
benefit- benefit- Indeterminate Total benefit- benefit- Indeterminate Total
eligible ineligible eligibility eligible ineligible eligibility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida 50 5 45 100 56 4 41 100
Idaho 34 17 49 100 43 10 47 100
Illinois 48 0 51 100 52 1 48 100
Maryland 46 4 50 100 51 4 45 100
Texas 33 7 60 100 36 5 59 100
Virginia 53 7 40 100 60 3 38 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Urban Institute tabulations of state administrative data for FY 2011.
Notes: Likely benefit-ineligible individuals are rarely identified in Illinois due to missing information for
most cases on the reason for closure.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Dr. Mills.
Dr. Ziliak, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JAMES P. ZILIAK, Ph.D., FOUNDING DIRECTOR, CENTER
FOR POVERTY RESEARCH; PROFESSOR AND CAROL MARTIN GATTON ENDOWED
CHAIR IN
MICROECONOMICS, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS,
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, LEXINGTON, KY
Dr. Ziliak. Madam Chair, Ranking Member McGovern, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
My name is James Ziliak, I hold the Carol Martin Gatton
Endowed Chair in Microeconomics at the University of Kentucky,
where I am also Founding Director of the Center for Poverty
Research. For the past 2 decades, I have conducted and
published peer-reviewed research on the U.S. safety net,
including SNAP and its predecessor, the Food Stamp Program. My
testimony today draws from my research on changes in SNAP
participation that can be found in a forthcoming book I am co-
editing at Stanford University Press entitled, SNAP Matters:
How Food Stamps Affect Health and Well Being.
SNAP has become a central component of the social safety
net in the U.S. Today, one in seven Americans receive
assistance from SNAP at a cost of $75 billion, making it the
second largest means-tested transfer program in terms of cost,
after Medicaid. From Fiscal Year 2000 to Fiscal Year 2012, the
number of participants increased 171 percent and inflation-
adjusted spending by 286 percent. What accounts for this
growth? As I demonstrate in my research, the weak U.S. economy
reflected by higher unemployment, lower incomes, and higher
income inequality was the main reason the number of Americans
on SNAP grew since 2000.
That SNAP is highly responsive to changes in the
macroeconomy shows that it functions effectively and
efficiently as a key anti-recessionary policy tool. That is, as
incomes fall during a recession, participation in SNAP rises to
bolster food consumption for children and adults. This past
decade of near-uninterrupted growth in participation is
unprecedented in the program's history. By most measures, the
recession of 2001 was mild, and past experience would have
dictated a decline of participation in the mid-2000s. This did
not happen.
The increase in SNAP in the middle of the decade stemmed in
part from stagnant household incomes, and a continued widening
of the distribution of income, making it increasingly difficult
for low income workers to make ends meet. Participation then
accelerated with the onset of the Great Recession as millions
of Americans lost work. But another important factor that led
to the growth in participation since 2000 was changes in
Federal and state SNAP policy that improved program access and
delivery to needy Americans. In the aftermath of the 1996
welfare reform and concurrent expansions of the Earned Income
Tax Credit, scores of former welfare recipients entered the
labor force, and even though many remained eligible for food
stamps, they left that program as well, potentially exposing
them and their children to heightened food insecurity. The
policy reforms, including the 2002 Farm Bill, were designed to
counteract the declining participation among eligibles, in
part, to foster the transition from welfare to work for former
AFDC recipients. The reforms conferred greater flexibility to
states to improve program take-up and administration, and they
worked.
During the same period, there were countervailing
demographic forces on the SNAP caseload. America is aging, and
given that seniors are much less likely to participate in SNAP,
this puts downward pressure on growth. Moreover, in recent
decades, increasing numbers of Americans matriculated from high
school and college, and since higher education leads to higher
incomes, more educated population also leads to lower SNAP use.
On the other hand, more children are raised in single or
multigenerational households, who tend to be more poor and more
likely to need assistance. Additionally, there has been a rise
in disability which also puts upward pressure on SNAP.
Combined, however, my research shows that the changing
demographics of the American household have actually helped to
keep the growth of SNAP in check.
At the same time, these changing demographic forces have
led to a changing composition in SNAP households. While the
majority of recipients continue to be children, seniors and the
disabled, that is, those persons not expected to work, SNAP has
increasingly evolved into a work support for households whose
head works full-year, has at least some college education, and
lives in a household with annual incomes in near poverty.
In conclusion, SNAP is operating to combat hunger and
poverty during periods of economic hardship as Congress
intended. It is the second most effective antipoverty program
in our safety net for the nonelderly, behind EITC, and is more
effective than the EITC at lifting families out of deep
poverty. Even though the program is at record highs in terms of
participation and cost, it is also functioning more efficiently
than ever with record low error rates and benefit
determination, having fallen by over 45 percent in the last
decade alone. SNAP matters more than ever in the safety net.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ziliak follows:]
Prepared Statement of James P. Ziliak, Ph.D., Founding Director, Center
for Poverty Research; Professor and Carol Martin Gatton Endowed Chair
in Microeconomics, Department of Economics, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY
Understanding the Growth of SNAP
Chairwoman Walorski, Ranking Member McGovern, and Members of the
Subcommittee on Nutrition, I thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP). My name is James Ziliak. I hold the Carol Martin Gatton
Endowed Chair in Microeconomics at the University of Kentucky, where I
am also the Founding Director of the Center for Poverty Research. The
Center is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization housed within
the Gatton College of Business and Economics at the University of
Kentucky. For the past 2 decades I have conducted and published peer-
reviewed research on the U.S. safety net, including SNAP and its
predecessor, the Food Stamp Program. I recently served as a member of
the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Examination of the Adequacy of
Food Resources and SNAP Allotments, and as Chair of the National
Academies of Science, Committee on National Statistics Workshop on
Research Gaps and Opportunities on the Causes and Consequences of Child
Hunger. I edited the books Welfare Reform and its Long Term
Consequences for America's Poor (Cambridge University Press, 2009) and
Appalachian Legacy: Economic Opportunity after the War on Poverty
(Brookings Institution Press, 2012). I am also co-editor of Income
Volatility and Food Assistance in the United States (W.E. Upjohn
Institute, 2008) and the forthcoming book SNAP Matters: How Food Stamps
Affect Health and Well Being (Stanford University Press, 2015).
My testimony today draws primarily from my research on changes in
SNAP participation, but also touches upon some of the results from the
other contributors in the forthcoming book SNAP Matters.\1\
Collectively, the book explores how and why the program has grown over
time; how it impacts the well-being of participants; and its
interconnections with the broader safety net. Key findings of the book
include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ziliak, James P. 2015. ``Why Are So Many Americans on Food
Stamps? The Role of the Economy, Policy, and Demographics,'' In SNAP
Matters: How Food Stamps Affect Health and Well Being, J. Bartfeld, C.
Gundersen, T. Smeeding, and J. Ziliak, editors, Redwood City, CA:
Stanford University Press.
SNAP is highly responsive to macroeconomic pressures as well
as to state policy choices intended to enhance access among
low-income households, helping families to provide food in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
times of economic need.
SNAP has become one of the most effective antipoverty
programs overall, especially at lifting non-elderly households
with children out of deep poverty.
SNAP is well integrated with the broader safety net,
including children's access to school meals, and filling in
residual gaps remaining after other forms of assistance.
Higher SNAP benefits reduce the risk of food insecurity.
SNAP does not appear to contribute to obesity.
SNAP has long-term benefits on health.
Most SNAP recipients spend more on food than their benefit
amount over the course of a year, suggesting that benefits are
not distorting food choices, including toward purchases of
items like sugar-sweetened beverages.
Below I elaborate on these findings, and consistent with the theme of
this hearing, I place a particular emphasis on understanding changes in
SNAP participation over time, where I argue that the weak U.S.
economy--as reflected by higher unemployment, lower incomes, and higher
income inequality--was the main reason the number of Americans on SNAP
grew since 2000.
Why are so many Americans on SNAP?
SNAP has become a central component of the social safety net in the
United States. Today, one in seven Americans receive assistance from
SNAP at a cost approaching $80 billion, making it the second largest
means-tested transfer program in terms of cost after Medicaid. From FY
2000-FY 2012 the number of participants increased 171 percent and
inflation-adjusted spending by 286 percent. What accounts for this
growth? In my research I use data from the Annual Social and Economic
Supplement of the Current Population Survey spanning 1980-2011 to
examine the influence of the economy, both cyclical forces from the
labor market and secular trends in income inequality; changes in
Federal and state policies, both directly affecting SNAP and those
indirectly affecting SNAP such as welfare reform and the Earned Income
Tax Credit; and the changing demographics of the American household.
Nearly 50 percent of the growth in SNAP after the onset of the
Great Recession in 2007 was due to the weak economy and widening
inequality. The economy explained an equally robust 45 percent of the
growth in SNAP after 2000.
That SNAP is highly responsive to changes in the macroeconomy shows
that SNAP functions effectively and efficiently as a key anti-
recessionary policy tool. That is, as incomes fall during a recession,
participation in SNAP rises to bolster food consumption of children and
adults. This is made transparent in Figure 1, which depicts changes in
the fraction of persons on SNAP since 1980 along with changes in the
unemployment rate. The gray shaded regions identify years that contain
an economic recession as determined by the independent National Bureau
of Economic Research. Figure 1 shows the buoyancy of the caseload with
the business cycle, especially from 1980 to 1999, with participation
rising during recessions and declining during expansions. However, the
past decade of near uninterrupted growth in participation is
unprecedented in the program's history. By most measures the recession
of 2001 was mild, and with declining unemployment in the aftermath of
the recession, past experience would have dictated a decline in
participation in the mid 2000s. This did not happen. Participation then
accelerated with the onset of the Great Recession as millions of
Americans lost work.
Figure 1: Trends in SNAP Participation and Unemployment Rate
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Author's calculations using CPS ASEC and BLS data.
Part of the reason that SNAP participation continued to increase in
the mid 2000s stemmed from stagnant household incomes and a widening
distribution of income, which made it increasingly difficult for low-
income workers to make ends meet. These trends are seen in Figure 2,
which depicts inflation-adjusted median household income is used to
signify how a ``typical'' household is faring, and the ratio of persons
in the 90th percentile of incomes to persons in the 10th percentile,
which is a standard measure of inequality. That is, households above
the 90th percentile are in the ``Top 10 percent'' and households below
the 10th percentile are in the ``Bottom 10 percent.'' The figure shows
real incomes fell for much of period since 2000, and there was a sharp
uptick in inequality.
Figure 2: Trends in the Level and Inequality of Household Income
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Author's calculations using CPS ASEC data.
However, given the overwhelming historical evidence on SNAP, we do
expect that as the economy continues to improve in the coming years,
participation and subsequently the cost of SNAP will ``automatically''
decline as families are no longer in need of assistance.\2\ Glimmers of
this are seen in Figure 1 where growth in participation tapers off at
the end of the period, as well as in recent tallies of administrative
data from USDA that shows there are 1.5 million fewer persons on SNAP
in November 2014 (the most recent data) than the peak in December
2012.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This prediction is corroborated by independent analyses of data
from the Survey of Income and Program Participation by Ganong and
Liebman (2013). Indeed, they find that the local macroeconomy accounted
for closer to \2/3\ of the growth in SNAP after 200. See Ganong, P.,
and J. Liebman. 2013. ``The Decline, Rebound, and Further Rise in SNAP
Enrollment: Disentangling Business Cycle Fluctuations and Policy
Changes.'' National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 19363.
\3\ http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/
34SNAPmonthly.pdf. See also Rosenbaum, D., and B. Keith-Jennings. 2015.
``SNAP Costs Declining, Expected to Fall Much Further: Trend Reflects
Recent Benefit Reduction and Lower Caseloads.'' Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, Washington D.C., February 9.
Almost 30 percent of the growth in SNAP since 2007 was due to
changes in Federal and state SNAP policy, and this fraction rises to 35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
percent going back to 2000.
Another important factor that led to the post-2000 growth of SNAP
was changes in policy affecting program eligibility and access. Basic
eligibility for SNAP benefits is determined by having monthly gross
income below 130 percent of the poverty guideline for a given household
size and monthly net income (gross income less deductions) that does
not exceed 100 percent of that guideline. Households with an elderly or
disabled person are exempt from the gross income test. In addition to
the two income tests, there is a liquid asset test of $2,000 ($3,250
for households with a disabled person or someone age 60 or older), and
a vehicle value test of $4,650. There is also ``categorical''
eligibility for SNAP conferred upon recipients of cash assistance from
the welfare program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or
the disability program Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law, the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA, also known as welfare reform), which eliminated the welfare
program Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and created
TANF. PRWORA directly affected SNAP as it eliminated eligibility for
most legal permanent aliens and for convicted drug felons; it limited
benefits to 3 months out of any 36 month period for able-bodied adults
without dependents (ABAWDs) between the ages of 18 and 50 working less
than 20 hours per week or not meeting other work requirements; it
reduced the maximum benefit and froze many deductions used in
calculating net income; it allowed states to sanction households for
noncompliance with TANF requirements or child support payments; and it
mandated that states adopt the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT)
replacing paper coupons with debit cards.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Gabor, V., and C. Botsko. 1998. ``State Food Stamp Policy
Choices under Welfare Reform: Findings of 1997 50-State Survey.''
Health Systems Research, Washington, D.C. Report submitted to U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participation in food stamps plummeted over 40 percent in the last
half of the 1990s, most of which was due to the growing economy at the
time.\5\ At the same time, however, there was a dramatic 25 percent
decline in participation among eligible families and individuals in the
wake of the 1996 welfare reform.\6\ That is, as families left the AFDC
program in the late 1990s, they also left the Food Stamp Program, even
though they remained eligible for food assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Figlio, D., C. Gundersen, and J. P. Ziliak. 2000. ``The Effects
of the Macroeconomy and Welfare Reform on Food Stamp Caseloads.''
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(3): 635-641.
\6\ Leftin, J., E. Eslami, and M. Strayer. 2011. Trends in
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal
Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2009. Mathematica Policy Research, Washington,
D.C. Report submitted to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The policy reforms, starting around 2000 and continuing with the
2002 Farm Bill, were designed to counteract the declining participation
among eligibles, in part to foster the transition from welfare to work
for former AFDC recipients. The reforms conferred greater flexibility
to states to improve program take-up and administration, including
expanded vehicle asset tests; expanded broad-based categorical
eligibility, which allowed states to utilize more generous TANF asset
and gross-income tests to determine eligibility (though recipients
still had to pass the net income test and other program requirements);
restored eligibility for legal aliens previously excluded by the 1996
welfare reform; and expanded the option for simplified reporting, which
allowed states to relax the frequency and form (i.e., phone or online)
of benefit recertification. Not all of the early 2000s reforms made
access easier; notably, most states increased the frequency of benefit
recertification in order to reduce error rates, and a few states
adopted policies such as fingerprinting.
As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
Congress increased average benefits by 13.6 percent, and both before
and after the onset of the Great Recession, many states received
statewide waivers from the ABAWD provision allowed under the 1996
welfare law because of excessively high unemployment rates. The
expanded benefits expired at the end of 2013, and because of the
improving economy, the statewide ABAWD waiver option will expire for
most states by the end of this year.\7\ Both reduced benefits and
reduced eligibility among ABAWDs are predicted to lead to declines in
SNAP participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Bolen, E. 2015. ``Approximately 1 Million Unemployed Childless
Adults will Lose SNAP Benefits in 2016 as State Waivers Expire:
Affected Individuals are Very Poor; Few Qualify for Other Help.''
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, D.C., February 26.
Other policies affecting low-income families such as the 1996
welfare reform, expanded EITC, and higher state and Federal minimum
wages had only a minimal effect on SNAP use since 2000, accounting for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
less than five percent of the growth.
There are a host of other policies that could potentially affect
whether or not an individual or household decides to participate in
SNAP. As mentioned, recipients of AFDC were categorically eligible for
food stamps, and in the early 1990s many states applied to the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services for waivers from Federal
welfare rules under Section 1150 in order to experiment with their AFDC
programs. These waivers included time limits, work requirements, and
sanctions, which were expected to make AFDC less accessible, as well as
expanded earnings disregards and asset limits, each of which were
expected to complement welfare and work. At the same time, as part of
the tax reforms of 1986, 1990, and 1993, and in the 2009 ARRA, the
generosity of the EITC was expanded. There is strong evidence that the
EITC stimulated employment,\8\ especially among single mothers, and
because eligibility and benefits for SNAP are means-tested, SNAP was
expected to fall in response to the higher EITC benefits. Likewise,
since 1981, Congress has raised the minimum wage three times (1989,
1996, 2007), and many states have acted independently to raise their
respective minimum wages. Again, like the EITC, a higher minimum wage
makes work more attractive, and reduces SNAP benefits, and these
periodic changes were expected to lead to reductions in SNAP
participation. My research shows that while all these predictions are
borne out in the data, their influence on overall SNAP participation
was small in comparison to the business cycle and SNAP policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Meyer, B. and D. Rosenbaum. 2001. ``Welfare, the Earned Income
Tax Credit, and the Labor Supply of Single Mothers.'' Quarterly Journal
of Economics 116(3): 1063-1114.
The changing demographic landscape, including the aging of the
population, is putting downward pressure on SNAP participation. SNAP
would have been five percent higher in 2011 than in 2000 in the absence
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of changing demographics.
The past several decades have witnessed significant demographic
changes affecting the American family, ranging from the aging of the
population to the rise of out-of-wedlock childbearing, and these forces
have differential effects on SNAP participation, some leading to
increases and some to decreases.
The U.S. population is aging; however, eligible seniors are much
less likely to participate in the program than younger persons--roughly
35 percent of eligible seniors receive SNAP, compared to the overall
take-up rate of 75 percent.\9\ This implies that population aging is
likely to put downward pressure on participation going forward.
Likewise, since the 1970s there have been significant increases in the
fraction of adults completing high school and some college. Because
higher incomes are associated with higher education attainment, we
expect the secular growth of education to put downward pressure on SNAP
growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Leftin, et al. (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighed against this demographic down-shift are countervailing
forces from growth in the fraction of births to unwed mothers, which
increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 40 percent by the mid-2000s.\10\
Because single-mother families are on average more likely to be poor
than married or cohabiting families, the rise in lone-parent families
should put upward pressure on SNAP growth. Concurrent with the rise of
out-of-wedlock childbearing has been growth in the fraction of multi-
generational households. A multi-generation household is one that
contains two or more adult generations, with or without a grandchild,
or a grandparent and grandchild household (``skipped generations'').
These families tend to be poorer, more likely to be food insecure, and
thus more likely to participate in SNAP.\11\ Likewise, the significant
growth in disability, both in the Supplemental Security Income and
Social Security Disability Income programs, is another secular trend
causing the increase in SNAP caseloads.\12\ SSI recipients are
automatically eligible for SNAP, and while households receiving DI must
still meet income and asset tests, those limits are higher than those
for households with no disabled persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Cancian, M., and D. Reed. 2009. ``Changes in Family Structure,
Childbearing, and Employment: Implications for the Level and Trend in
Poverty.'' In M. Cancian and S. Danziger, Eds, Changing Poverty,
Changing Policies. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 92-121.
\11\ Ziliak, J. P., and C. Gundersen. Forthcoming.
``Multigenerational Families and Food Insecurity,'' Southern Economic
Journal.
\12\ Autor, D. 2011. ``The Unsustainable Rise of the Disability
Rolls in the United States: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Options.''
NBER Working Paper 17697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My research suggests that demographic trends--population aging,
increased education attainment, smaller households with fewer children,
and migration from rural to metro areas--have dampened SNAP
participation and kept its growth in check.
SNAP has evolved increasingly into a work support for household's
whose head works full-year, has at least some college education, and is
near poor.
The composition of households receiving SNAP is changing. Figure 3
presents trends in the age composition of households receiving SNAP in
three age groups--children under age 18, adults age 18-59, and seniors
age 60 and older. The figure reveals that in the last decade there has
been a shift in the age composition of households receiving SNAP away
from children and elderly and toward adults. Prior to the Great
Recession about 55 percent of SNAP households consisted of children and
the elderly, but by 2009, a slim majority were non-elderly adults. It
is important to note that in the CPS data I use a household may consist
of both persons on SNAP and those not on SNAP, which is not the same
definition as used in SNAP Quality Control Data, which focuses on the
SNAP recipient unit alone. However, this same shift in composition
toward assistance for adults is also found in the QC data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Hoynes, H. and D. Schanzenbach. Forthcoming. ``U.S. Food and
Nutrition Programs.'' In Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United
States, Volume II, R. Moffitt, Editor, Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3: Trends in the Age Composition of SNAP Households
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Author's calculations using CPS ASEC data.
Coincident with the shift in age composition of SNAP households,
Figure 4 shows that the share of those households headed by a person
working full-year, whether full-time or part-time, has been fastest
over this period. That is, an increasing share of heads of SNAP
households has a very strong attachment to the labor force. Indeed,
SNAP QC data indicate that the fraction of actual SNAP recipiency units
with earnings increased by over \1/3\ after welfare reform.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 4: Trends in Distribution of SNAP Households by Employment
Status of Head
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Author's calculations using CPS ASEC data.
Furthermore, Figure 5 shows that the fraction of SNAP households headed
by a high school dropout has plummeted by more than \1/2\ since 1980,
and by 2011, more than \1/3\ of SNAP households were headed by someone
with some college or more. Figure 6, which depicts the distribution of
SNAP households by household income in relation to the Federal poverty
guideline, shows that since the mid-1980s the composition of SNAP
households has trended toward those with annual incomes above the
poverty line. This suggests that SNAP has evolved into a work
supplement for educated, near-poor households. The growing prevalence
of full-year working recipients implies that concerns that SNAP is
operating as a work disincentive are likely less relevant than in the
past, in part because the expanded EITC mitigates the potential
disincentive for the majority of working recipients.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Moffitt, R. 2015. ``Multiple Program Participation and the
SNAP Program.'' In SNAP Matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 5: Trends in Distribution of SNAP Households by Education
Attainment of Head
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Author's calculations using CPS ASEC data.
Implications for Family Well Being
The expansion of SNAP over the past decade, both from rising need
from the deepest recession since the Great Depression and changing
policy improving program access and delivery, has wider implications
for family well being.
Behind the EITC, SNAP is the most effective anti-poverty program
for the non-elderly, and is even more effective than the EITC in
mitigating deep poverty among families with children.\16\ The reason
for the greater anti-poverty effects among the very poor is that many
of these disadvantaged households do not have earnings, or only limited
earnings, and because of its uniqueness in the U.S. safety net as a
near universal program regardless of age, employment status, or family
structure, SNAP is able to assist the very poor where other programs do
not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Tiehen, L., D. Jolliffe, and T. Smeeding. ``The Effect of SNAP
on Poverty.'' In SNAP Matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 6: Trends in the Distribution of SNAP Households by Income
Status
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Author's calculations using CPS ASEC data.
SNAP has also been shown to lead to increases in total food
spending, implying that most SNAP recipients spend more on food each
month than their SNAP allotment; and in the face of income shocks to
families such as in the Great Recession, SNAP reduces the short-run
volatility of food consumption by just under 15 percent, and long-term
income shocks on food are lower by \1/3\.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Hoynes H, L. McGranahan, and D. Schanzenbach. 2015. ``SNAP and
Food Consumption.'' In SNAP Matters; Gundersen, C. and J. Ziliak. 2003.
``The Role of Food Stamps in Consumption Stabilization.'' Journal of
Human Resources 38 (Supplement): 1051-1079; Blundell, R. and L.
Pistaferri. 2003. ``Income Volatility and Household Consumption: The
Impact of Food Assistance Programs.'' Journal of Human Resources 38
(Supplement): 1032-1050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That food consumption is stabilized by SNAP in times of economic
need has positive spillovers on the health of the family. Namely, the
best evidence suggests that food insecurity, i.e., a situation that
``exists whenever the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe
foods or the ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable
ways is limited or uncertain,'' is reduced by increases in SNAP
benefits.\18\ The timing of receipt of benefits over the life course
also matters. Specifically, compelling evidence, albeit limited in the
number of studies, indicates that exposure to the program in utero and
in early childhood has positive effects on birth outcomes as well as in
better health in adulthood such as lower risk of obesity, heart
disease, and diabetes.\19\ And this early exposure to SNAP in childhood
facilitates access to school feeding programs such as school breakfast
and lunch, which have an additional, independent effect of lowering
food insecurity.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Schmidt, L., L. Shore-Sheppard, and T. Watson. Forthcoming.
``The Effect of Safety Net Programs on Food Insecurity.'' Journal of
Human Resources; Mabli, J. and J. Worthington. 2014. ``Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Child Food Security.''
Pediatrics 133(4): 1-10; Gregory, C., M. Rabbitt, and D. Ribar. 2015.
``The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Food Insecurity.''
In SNAP Matters.
\19\ Almond, D., H. Hoynes, and D. Schanzenbach. 2011. ``Inside the
War on Poverty: The Impact of Food Stamps on Birth Outcomes.'' Review
of Economics and Statistics 93(2): 387-403; Hoynes, H., D.
Schanzenbach, and D. Almond. 2012. ``Long Run Impacts of Childhood
Access to the Safety Net.'' National Bureau of Economic Research
Working Paper 18535; Gundersen, C. 2015. ``SNAP and Obesity.'' In SNAP
Matters.
\20\ Bartfeld, J. 2015. ``SNAP and the School Meal Programs.'' In
SNAP Matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
SNAP is operating to combat hunger and poverty during periods of
economic hardship asCongress intended when it initially passed the Food
Stamp Act in 1964, and with each subsequent reauthorization. Although
the majority of recipients are children, elderly, or the disabled, the
program in recent years has increasingly evolved into a work support
for households with a full-year worker with some college education.
Even though the program is at record highs in terms of participation
and cost, it is also functioning more efficiently than ever with record
low error rates in benefit determination, having fallen by over 45
percent in the last decade alone.\21\ With its Federal funding that
rises and falls with the state of the economy, it offers a first line
of defense against poverty and food insecurity for the widest array of
American families of any program in the safety net--young, old,
working, not working, healthy, disabled--that is not possible in other
programs, such as in the block-granted TANF program that did not
respond to rising need this last decade. SNAP matters more than ever in
the safety net.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Based on a comparison of FY 2004 and FY 2013 benefit error
rates http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/snap-reports#qc-error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I again thank the Committee for the opportunity to share the
results of our research.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Dr. Ziliak.
Mr. Tordella, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. TORDELLA, PRESIDENT, DECISION
DEMOGRAPHICS, ARLINGTON, VA
Mr. Tordella. Thank you, Chairwoman Walorski, Ranking
Member McGovern, and Committee Members.
Today I will talk to you about flows onto and off of SNAP,
tracking who goes onto SNAP and at what rates, what events are
associated with entering or exiting the program. Once on the
program, how long do participants stay? When people leave the
program, do they come back? Also, I will compare recent results
with our studies from the early and mid-2000s.
We used the Survey of Income and Program Participation, or
SIPP, to follow 25,000 U.S. households from mid-2008 through
the end of 2012, with data on every person, every month. We
focused on people who might be at risk of joining SNAP; those
below three times the poverty. Our study includes the peak of
the recession and continues for 3 years afterwards. SNAP
participation grew from 29 to 48 million people during this
study period.
So let us start at the beginning with entry rates. During
our study period, .7 percent of lower income people joined SNAP
each month. In the early 2000s, the entry rate was .4 percent
monthly. So the entry rate almost doubled in about 10 years.
SNAP entry patterns differed by family situation and income.
People who had received SNAP before were three times more
likely than average to enter SNAP. Entry rates were also higher
than average for families with children or disabled members,
and those without income. Elderly adults and ABAWDs, the
nondisabled 18 to 49 year olds without dependents, had lower
than average SNAP entry rates.
So what events are associated with entering SNAP? The most
common events were decreases in family earnings, unemployment
and family changes. Thirty percent of SNAP entrants had a
recent decrease in earnings, 15 percent were in families where
someone became unemployed, and over ten percent had a family
change like pregnancy, a new child, or divorce.
So once on SNAP, how long do people stay? We call peoples'
time on SNAP a spell. At any given point, there are both short
and long spells in progress. So let us look at shorter spells
in our sample by measuring the length of every new spell that
started during 2008 to 2012. The average new spell length that
was 12 months, that is, \1/2\ of participants had left SNAP
within 12 months. This compares to 8 months just after 2000,
and 10 months at mid-decade. People in single-parent families,
below poverty, and disabled adults had longer spell lengths.
Elderly living alone have the longest spells of any group, an
average of over 4 years. ABAWDs had the shortest spells, along
with those whose income was more than twice poverty. In all,
\2/3\ of new spells were over within 2 years.
What about the people who were already receiving SNAP when
the study period started? Many of them were in the middle of
longer term spells. Think of older people on fixed incomes,
whose living situations may stay the same for years at a time.
If they qualify for SNAP, they could need the program for a
while. So to study these longer spells, we took everyone on the
program as of December 2008, looked back to when they started
the program, and forward month-by-month for another 4 years.
These continuing spells on SNAP average 8 years. During the
mid-2000s, it was 7 years. Older population groups, again, had
the longest spells; over 8 years, while for ABAWDs, the average
was only 3 years.
Next, let us consider the events associating with exiting
SNAP. Just like entry, earnings and family situations are the
main exit events. People who start to earn more money are
likely to leave SNAP. Also, one in five people who had a family
member exit the household exited SNAP within 4 months.
Finally, when people leave SNAP, do they come back? Well,
in 2008 to 2012, nearly \1/2\ of those who left the program
reentered within a year. That was faster than during the mid-
2000s. Some groups reentered more quickly, including children
and those below poverty. Other groups took more time, including
elderly and families without children.
In sum, our study of SNAP dynamics showed that the program
responded to changes in the economy during the recession and
its aftermath in the expected ways. Entry rates were higher
than before, spell durations were longer, reentry was faster.
These factors combined to cause program growth, but SNAP
participation was still driven by individual circumstances.
Entry rates and spell lengths were highest among the poor, and
decreased with income. Changes in employment and earnings were
the most common entry as well as exit events. These findings
underscored that the program is responding to changing economic
conditions as well as individuals' changing needs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tordella follows:]
Prepared Statement Stephen J. Tordella, President, Decision
Demographics, Arlington, VA
Dynamics of SNAP Participation from 2008 to 2012.
Thank you, Chairwoman Jackie Walorski, Ranking Member Jim McGovern,
and Members of the Nutrition Subcommittee for this opportunity to
testify on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). I was
asked to testify before this Committee as part of an evidence-based
approach to understanding the SNAP population. Critical to developing
effective SNAP policy, this review of SNAP dynamics will help Congress
to understand changes in SNAP participation patterns and the national
caseload under different economic conditions and policy environments.
My testimony is based on a recent study of SNAP participation
dynamics conducted by my organization, Decision Demographics, and our
partners at Mathematica Policy Research, for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support. I
will present findings from one of our study reports, ``Dynamics of SNAP
Participation from 2008 to 2012,'' a link to which can be found on our
website.\1\ My colleagues, Principal Investigator James Mabli, who
coauthored this testimony, as well as authors Joshua Leftin, Thomas
Godfrey, and Nancy Wemmerus contributed to this report. The study used
data from the 2008 panel of the Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP), a nationally representative longitudinal sample
survey that collected detailed information for 5 years, beginning in
2008, on monthly labor force activity, income, family circumstances,
and program participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Leftin, Joshua, Nancy Wemmerus, James Mabli, Thomas Godfrey,
and Stephen Tordella, (2014). Dynamics of SNAP Participation from 2008
to 2012. Prepared by Decision Demographics for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Alexandria, VA. Available
online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Dynamics2008-
2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This afternoon I will describe patterns of SNAP caseload dynamics
over the past decade. By ``dynamics,'' we mean the flow of participants
into and out of the program. I will specifically address:
Who goes onto SNAP and at what rates do they enter the
program?
Once participants are on the program, how long do they stay?
When they leave the program, how long is it before they come
back?
What events are associated with people entering or exiting
SNAP?
How do different groups of people participate in the
program?
How do SNAP dynamics drive changes in participation patterns
and the national caseload over time?
First, for context, I will highlight SNAP participation trends over
the last decade. Next, I will review our findings on SNAP caseload
dynamics. I will discuss observed differences in these dynamics over
the past 10 years; describe distinctions by demographic, economic and
family characteristics; and present factors associated with SNAP entry
and exit. I will close by discussing how changing patterns in dynamics
have shaped overall caseload changes, comparing findings from our two
most recent studies, which looked at the periods 2004-2006 and 2008-
2012.
SNAP Today
SNAP is the largest of the 15 domestic nutrition assistance
programs administered by FNS. The number of SNAP participants has
increased dramatically over the past decade, from an average monthly
caseload of 24 million in Fiscal Year 2004 to its peak of 47.6 million
in Fiscal Year 2013. It declined modestly to 46.5 million in Fiscal
Year 2014. Understanding SNAP participation dynamics over time is
critical to understanding these participation changes. Figure 1
provides a snapshot of changes in SNAP participation and concurrent
rates of unemployment and poverty, since 1990.
Figure 1
Trends in Poverty, the SNAP Caseload, and the Number of Unemployed
Individuals, 1990-2013
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Examining SNAP Entry Rates
Between mid-2008 and the end of 2012--the period for which SIPP
followed the respondents on which we based this study--an average of
seven out of every 1,000 people in low-income families who were not
receiving SNAP entered SNAP in the next month.\2\ This is a 40 percent
increase over the 2004 to 2006 study period (referred to as the mid-
2000s), when five out of every 1,000 people in low-income families
joined the program each month, and substantially higher than the period
from 2001 to 2003, when four out of every 1,000 people in low-income
families joined SNAP each month on average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We considered individuals to be in a low-income family if they
had family income less than 300 percent of poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP entry patterns differ by family situation and income. For
example, individuals who received benefits in the past were much more
likely to enter than those who had not received benefits. Three of
every 1,000 low-income nonparticipants who had never received SNAP
benefits during their adult lives entered the program in a given month,
compared with 23 out of 1,000 people who had participated previously
(see Figure 2). Entry rates were also higher than average for
individuals in families with children or disabled members, and those in
families without income. Nondisabled adults age 18-49 in households
without dependents (commonly referred to as ``ABAWDs''), and elderly
adults, had lower than average SNAP entry rates.
Figure 2
Monthly Entrants per 1,000 by Demographic Characteristics for
Individuals with Income at or below 300% of Poverty
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Factors Associated with Entering SNAP
The detailed SIPP monthly data allow us to observe life events or
changes that may be associated with entering (or exiting) SNAP.
Although we cannot definitively ascertain that these events caused SNAP
entry, we can show to what degree certain events or changes in
circumstances, which we call ``triggers,'' immediately precede SNAP
entry.
The most common events associated with entry into SNAP were related
to decreases in family earnings, loss of employment, and changes to the
family situation. Among those who entered SNAP in the study period, 30
percent experienced a substantial decrease in family earnings in the
previous 4 months, while 23 percent experienced a substantial loss in
other family income-income aside from earnings and Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF). Nearly 16 percent of those who entered SNAP
were in families where a member became unemployed within the previous 4
months, and 12 percent experienced a change in their family situation
within the previous 4 months, such as a pregnancy, a new dependent in
the family, or a separation or divorce.
Once Participants Are On SNAP, How Long Do They Stay?
Because time on the program contributes to overall caseload and
program costs, there is great interest in understanding how long SNAP
participants typically receive assistance. Dynamics research refers to
each participation period as a ``spell'' and the number of months a
participant receives SNAP benefits in one session as a ``spell
length.''
SNAP spells have gotten longer over the past decade: half of those
who entered the program between 2008 to 2012 (``new entrants'') exited
within 12 months, compared to 10 months during the mid-2000s and 8
months in the early 2000s. SNAP spell lengths were shorter for
individuals in families without children and for ABAWDs (see Figure 3).
Spell lengths were longer for new entrants living in poverty, those in
single-parent families, nonelderly disabled adults, and children.
Overall, however, most entrants left the program within 2 years.
Figure 3
Median SNAP Spell lengths for New Entrants by Demographic
Characteristics and Income
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In the findings presented above, we observed individuals who
entered SNAP any time during the 2008 to 2012 survey period, and
followed them to determine how long they remained on the program.
However, looking only at these new entrants does not allow us to
understand the behavior of longer-term SNAP participants; many long-
term participants were already receiving SNAP when this round of the
SIPP survey began, so by following only new entrants during the survey
period, we necessarily miss many of those whose stay began before the
survey period. To more completely understand caseload dynamics, we also
took a slice of the population at an early point in the survey (called
a cross-section) and looked at who was receiving SNAP and how they long
they had already been on the program. We then followed these cases
forward, determining whether they exited the program during the survey
period. As expected, this cross-section of SNAP participants has longer
spells than the new entrants: a median length of 8 years, up from 7
years in the mid-2000s (in other words, \1/2\ of those who were
participating early in the 2008 panel period exited within 8 years, but
\1/2\ remained on the program longer than 8 years). Elderly individuals
had higher than average median spell length while ABAWDs had a median
spell length of 3 years.
What Factors are Associated with Exiting SNAP?
The SNAP exit rate is the percentage of participants that exit the
program over a fixed period of time. As with entry rates, changes in
average exit rates over time can help explain changes in overall
caseload size. Examining individuals' circumstances around the time of
exit can provide clues as to why individuals may leave the program. We
found that factors contributing to exit from SNAP differ for people in
different demographic or economic circumstances.
In about 30 percent of households that exit SNAP, the data do not
show an event related to improved financial circumstances or reduced
need in the previous 4 months that we would readily associate with exit
from the program. About 70 percent experienced a substantial increase
in income or a decrease in the number of family members. Thirty-seven
percent experienced more than one of these events in the 4 months
before exiting. Increases in earnings were the most common of the
events we examined that preceded exits. These events, however, are
common and do not always lead to exiting SNAP.
At What Rates do Individuals Re-Enter the Program?
SNAP re-entry patterns measure the extent to which individuals
transition on and off the program. Forty-seven percent of SNAP
participants who exited the program in the panel period re-entered
within 12 months. Another 12 percent re-entered within 2 years, for a
total of 59 percent re-entering within 24 months. Participants returned
to the program more quickly during 2008 to 2012 than prior study
periods. In the mid-2000s, 53 percent of participants re-entered within
2 years.
Some subgroups re-entered SNAP more quickly than others. In
particular, individuals in families whose income was below the poverty
level when they exited returned to SNAP more quickly than those who had
higher incomes. Similarly, individuals in families with children
returned to SNAP more quickly than those in families without children.
How Entry Rates and Duration Explain Increases in SNAP Participation
As noted at the beginning of this testimony, the SNAP caseload grew
substantially from the 2004 to 2006 period to the 2008 to 2012 period,
and in each year over the course of the 2008 to 2012 period. For a
caseload to grow, people must be entering the program at higher rates,
staying in the program longer, or both--which is what occurred during
2008 to 2012. This continues a trend in SNAP dynamics observed from the
early 2000s to the mid-2000s; yet while the economy was improving
during the mid-2000s, this was not the case during much of the 2008 to
2012 period. As a result, the increases in entry and duration from the
mid-2000s to the 2008 to 2012 time period were greater than those from
the early to mid-2000s. Finally, although the caseload grew each year
from 2008 to 2012, there was a slowdown in growth over this period due
to a year-to-year decline in the number of SNAP entrants relative to
the total caseload.
Policy Implications from Examining SNAP Dynamics
We hope that this objective analysis will contribute to the
research base on SNAP program dynamics, especially as Congress conducts
an evidence-based investigation of the program. Through this research,
we investigated SNAP caseload dynamics to better understand what drives
changes in SNAP participation over time.
This study of SNAP dynamics provides two key insights into the rise
in the SNAP caseload over the past 10 years. First, SNAP participation
in 2008 to 2012 increased, relative to the mid-2000s, due to both an
increase in entry rates and the length of time spent on SNAP. The
proportion of low-income individuals not already on the program who
entered in an average month increased by 40 percent and the median
spell of SNAP participation among new entrants lasted 20 percent longer
than during the mid-2000s.
Second, SNAP dynamics closely reflect individual circumstances.
SNAP entry rates were highest among the poorest individuals, and
decreased with income. Similarly, the length of time spent on SNAP was
longest for poorest individuals, and decreased with income. Changes in
employment and earnings were the most common factor associated with
entering and exiting the program. Job losses and decreases in earnings
were strongly associated with entering SNAP, and job gains and
increases in earnings were strongly associated with leaving the
program. These findings suggest that the program is responding to
changing economic conditions and individuals' increased needs in the
way in which it was originally designed.
Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to testify before the
House Committee on Agriculture about this important topic.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Tordella. And thank you to
all of you for your testimony.
We are going to move into the question period now.
Dr. Mills, I have a question for you. In your churn study,
talking about the cycling of families on and off of benefits,
you mentioned one of the reasons was that recipients were
experiencing personal difficulties, and kind of in a follow-up
to a question I had yesterday on the full Committee on SNAP
about families getting real help, what is the engagement level
of states going into these recertifications?
Dr. Mills. It is rather extensive. That is to say, the
effort that is put into the recertification is a full review of
the eligibility factors of the case. So it is immigration,
citizenship, it is their household income, expenses and
resources. So it is, in terms of case worker effort, it is
probably something like 2 to 3 hours of a case worker's time.
The Chairwoman. So there is a case worker from SNAP that
potentially knows there is a situation with a family?
Dr. Mills. A schedule--well, I am talking actually about a
scheduled----
The Chairwoman. Okay.
Dr. Mills.--recertification.
The Chairwoman. Yes.
Dr. Mills. So those would occur typically at intervals of
12 or 24 months. And the point I was trying to make in my
testimony was that the, say, 2 to 3 hours that might be spent
by a case worker at recertification is far less than what is
required at an initial application. And the phenomenon of churn
causes individuals, once they go off the program, many of them
have to come back by going through a full initial application,
which may require, say, 6 or 7 hours of the case worker's time.
So it is more----
The Chairwoman. And what did you learn from your interviews
with SNAP staff and those with--in the community-based
organizations?
Dr. Mills. I indicated some of the recommendations that we
heard from the staff of these offices. We interviewed staff in
one local office in each of the six states. We also interviewed
representatives of community-based organizations.
The Chairwoman. Yes.
Dr. Mills. And I believe that the Chairman actually made
reference in his opening statement the other day to the kind of
expansion of the food assistance network to include food banks
and other nonprofit organizations. Some states do make use of
such community-based organizations to assist clients in the
outreach and in applying for benefits. That is a strategy that
some states also use at recertification, allowing the client to
be interviewed by a worker at a food bank if, for instance,
they might find it difficult to get to a local office, and if
they are already going to that food bank, and would represent
less burden for them.
The Chairwoman. I appreciate it. Maybe this is the
disadvantage of longer certification periods, fewer
interactions and opportunities to help families. I appreciate
your testimony.
Dr. Mills. Yes.
The Chairwoman. I now recognize Mr. McGovern, for 5
minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much.
On this issue of churning and recertification, we had a
witness here yesterday who said that there should be more
certification processes. My question to you is, how would
requirements for more frequent recertification likely affect
the churn rate?
Dr. Mills. I think of this as a trade-off that is a
difficult one to make. As I pointed out in my testimony, there
are multiple objectives here. You want to provide access to the
program for those who are eligible for benefits, and at the
same time you want to maintain the integrity of the program by
not allowing those who are ineligible to access the program. So
the procedural barriers exist for multiple reasons. You want to
make sure that people, in fact, meet the eligibility
requirements, but you don't want to place those barriers, those
hurdles so high that it might prevent those who are, in fact,
entitled to receive benefits from entering the program.
In general, as I think you have heard from Mr. Greenstein
the other day, the error rates in the program are very low.
Only about one percent of recipients in the food stamp--in the
SNAP program are, in fact, ineligible and should not be
receiving benefits. All others are eligible and perhaps not
receiving the correct amount. But the program, by those
measures, is very well administered, reflecting the amount of
attention that goes into initial certification and
recertification.
More barriers, I think that this is getting to your
question----
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Dr. Mills.--more barriers, more procedural requirements
almost certainly would increase the rate of churn because there
would be some individuals eligible for assistance who would not
be able to meet those requirements. They would go off, but they
would be unable to make ends meet without those benefits. They
would reapply.
Mr. McGovern. Right, and I would like to think that we all
can agree that everybody who is eligible for this benefit
should be able to get it, that we shouldn't be going out of our
way to make it more difficult for eligible people to get a food
benefit.
Mr. Tordella, I am concerned about the different ways of
looking at the length of SNAP spells that you cite, and that
some people get the mistaken impression that too many people
receive SNAP for too long. Doesn't the program have an
extremely low share of ineligible people participating, so if
people receive benefits, aren't we pretty sure that they need
help feeding themselves and their families?
Mr. Tordella. Sorry. None of our data actually reflect
directly on whether they are--the people are ineligible, and we
didn't choose to--so we didn't try to judge that or infer that.
The differences--there are--in order to though get a complete
picture of what is happening on SNAP, you have to look at both
the short-term spells, that is, spells----
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Mr. Tordella.--that have just started during the period
that we observed, and be able to look at the longer-term spells
as well, because those may be in progress when you start the
study and they still can be going on afterwards. But with
regard to the short-term spells and \2/3\ are over within 2
years.
Mr. McGovern. Right. Well, let me just ask anybody on the
panel because this is a question that constantly gets raised
that somehow that we have lots and lots and lots of ineligible
people taking advantage of the system who are enrolled in this
program. Does anybody want to dispute that? Dr. Ziliak?
Dr. Ziliak. Yes, there is no evidence to back up that
claim. I mean it is a very efficiently run program. The overall
error rate today is around 3.2 percent. That is the benefit
determination error rate. The number of individuals on the
program who are ineligible is a very small fraction of the
total caseload. The--these long spells that you pick up in the
data are frequently people who are elderly or disabled,
individuals who aren't in any physical capacity to exit to work
and improve their economic situation.
So there are these long spells; it is a different
population than the typical spell that we see on the caseload,
which is a more dynamic population.
Mr. McGovern. Anyone have a different opinion? Dr. Mills?
Dr. Mills. If I could just expand on that response. The
error rates in the program are now at all-time lows. If you
look at the trend, it is dramatically down over the last 10
years. Some of the errors that actually occur and are detected
through the quality control system are errors of underpayment.
There are some individuals who actually are not receiving----
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Dr. Mills.--fully the benefit they are entitled to.
Moreover, there are quality control reviews that indicate
improper denials and terminations in the program, the
phenomenon I mentioned about excessive procedural requirements.
The other thing I will note is that other measures of integrity
such as trafficking of SNAP benefits also show very low rates.
Retailer trafficking is only about 1.3 percent, by the most
recent estimates, of total benefits redeemed.
Mr. McGovern. Sounds like a good, well-run program. Thank
you.
The Chairwoman. I now recognize Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and congratulations on
chairing this Subcommittee. I am proud to be a part of it and
proud to have you here on the House Agriculture Committee. Yes,
and, Mr. Ranking Member, always great to spar with you, not
only at the Committee level, but also at the Subcommittee
level. And congratulations to you too, sir, but more
congratulations to Jackie. That is just part of being in the
majority. I apologize.
The Chairwoman. I can't give you any more time. Your time
is ticking.
Mr. Davis. That is okay. I hopefully won't talk the entire
time. I actually want to hear some information out of the
panel.
Thank you for being here. Hopefully, what you have seen in
the last 30 seconds is we actually do like to have fun up here.
I am a big supporter of children who are hungry getting
access to the food and nutrition that they need, through the
SNAP program or other programs. In the opening testimony, Ms.
Cunnyngham, that you had mentioned some of the other programs
that feed children and those who are in need of hunger
assistance, besides SNAP. Can--and this goes to the whole
panel. Is there any way, can you elaborate on some of the other
programs that are available? Like I know I visited some
schools, some summer lunch sites, during the summertime to feed
kids who were part of the School Nutrition Program. And just
one observation on the program that you decide to talk about
that you think we can do as a Congress to make them more
effective and more better. So we will start with you, ma'am.
Ms. Cunnyngham. Sure. Well, there is the National School
Lunch Program. There is the School Breakfast Program which is
expanding in recent years. It serves breakfast to hungry
children. There is the Summer Feeding Program that you
discussed. In terms of recommendations, I know that there is a
wealth of research out on those programs, and I can provide you
some of those studies. I don't have recommendations myself, but
I do hope that you will look at the information that is out
there.
[The information referred to is located on p. 149.]
Mr. Davis. I would be glad to get the information, but if
you have recommendations, and that is what we are here for too
is to--you are the experts, and I know for my purposes, I want
to know what you think is going to make us be able to put
better policy and to achieve the goals that we all have. Dr.
Mills?
Dr. Mills. Yes. I know this is the Nutrition Subcommittee
after all, and one of my interests, and reflecting on other
research I have done, is what could be done to enable these
programs, the ones that have been mentioned, to promote better
informed and more healthful choices on what individuals and
families, and families with children in particular, consume.
I think there have been efforts, not only in the SNAP
program and in other programs including WIC and school lunch
and school breakfast, to encourage more consumption of fresh
fruits and vegetables. You may be familiar with a--an
experiment that is now ongoing in Massachusetts, and largely
completed, called the Healthy Incentives Pilot in SNAP, and
that is through price discounting of healthier foods,
encouraging families to purchase those items and not others.
So, my own feeling, and based on my own research, is that
the programs should try to strike a better balance between
improving the income capacity and income supplementation, but
at the same time, improving nutritional intake.
Mr. Davis. All right, well, thank you for--I am reclaiming
my time real quick. Thank you for your comments on the School
Nutrition Program. I agree, kids need to eat healthier, but we
also have to provide the flexibility, that there is not a calm-
down approach that we sometimes see, that forces school
districts out of the School Nutrition Program. So I would love
to work with you on that issue too.
Dr. Ziliak?
Dr. Ziliak. Yes, thank you. So with the school feeding
programs, it turns out that the SNAP program is oftentimes a
gateway for children onto the school breakfast or lunch
programs through the eligibility standards used for the school
feeding programs, but it also works the other way around, that
some of the school breakfast and lunch programs, children enter
on SNAP after they go onto the school programs. And so there is
a real important coordination between overall SNAP program with
the school feeding programs that assist children.
Dr. Mills also mentioned the WIC program which, of course,
is a very important nutrition assistance program for low income
families, and also works in conjunction with the SNAP program.
With children, what we are able to capture is kind of this more
wraparound food provision. There is a demographic of children
who don't receive as much assistance in the school feeding
programs, and that is teenagers, okay, the kids in high school.
And so that is still a group that kind of falls through the
cracks through some of these programs.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
I think I am out of time, Mr. Tordella. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. The chair recognizes Ms. Adams for 5
minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you
to all who have testified today. I appreciate you being here.
And I appreciate the hearings on SNAP that are driven by data
and research. I am an educator by training, so I certainly
appreciate that. And I hope that we are able to use the
oversight hearings as an opportunity to learn how the program
works, before we pass judgment on the people who receive the
benefits.
Dr. Mills, your testimony included the recommendation for
states to align the recertification dates for SNAP, TANF and
Medicaid. How many states in the Southeast have implemented
your recommendation?
Dr. Mills. There are about 40 states nationwide, and I can
provide for you information for the record as to who those
states are, that do integrate the application process between
SNAP and Medicaid, and some of those also extend that
integration to other programs, including TANF.
I think the recommendation that I have is to ensure that
that integration extends also to the recertification process,
and that, for instance, the recertification dates that clients
face be aligned so that they don't, within, let us say, a year-
long period, face multiple deadlines. For many recipients, that
is confusing and it is what leads, in part, to these procedural
difficulties. But I certainly can provide to you information,
especially about states in the South.
Ms. Adams. Yes, I would appreciate that.
Dr. Mills. Yes.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to is retained in Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Adams. If you could tell me in terms of the churn
program how many children are exposed to that program within
the SNAP program, and how does it impact their access to free
school meals through direct certification?
Dr. Mills. Well, churning is the movement of cases
receiving SNAP off the program and then back on within a period
of 4 months. So it is the--some of what you have heard from the
witnesses here is about length of time on the program. This
really is more about brief periods off the program that we are
talking about SNAP receipt, SNAP benefits.
Now, children, of course, are an important part of this
program in general, and so not surprisingly a very substantial
percentage of those who churn are families with children,
approximately \1/2\, and if you include also elderly and
disabled--households with elderly or disabled members, it is
approaching \2/3\ of churners that have vulnerable individuals
within the household. Individuals whose food security then is
almost certainly adversely affected by the disruption of
benefits.
Ms. Adams. Dr. Ziliak, besides the work requirement for
able-bodied adults without children, how have other major
policy changes, such as the expansion of the Earned Income Tax
Credit, contributed to most SNAP recipients working while
receiving benefits?
Dr. Ziliak. So it turns out that the number one program
that SNAP recipients receive after SNAP is the Earned Income
Tax Credit, and the program after that is the Child Tax Credit,
and this comes from the same dataset that Mr. Tordella was
using for his analysis. And so the program combines with SNAP,
right, the Earned Income Tax Credit, is a work supplement, and
for these households, SNAP is functioning akin to the EITC in
providing some assistance to the family who are working in low
wage occupations.
So in terms of other policies besides the EITC, the SNAP
policy at the state level that have been implemented, for
example, a number of states receive waivers to increase their
vehicle asset limits, which facilitates the transition from
welfare to work. There were increases in simplified reporting,
so that made some of the recertification processes a little bit
easier. Dr. Mills has talked about some of the challenges with
recertification, but in the absence of this simplified
reporting, undoubtedly, the churn would have been a lot worse
over the last decade.
So things like expanded asset limits, expanded vehicle
limits, simplified reporting, have all facilitated families'
access to the program over the last decade.
Ms. Adams. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
The Chairwoman. The chair recognizes Mr. Abraham, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Abraham. Good evening. Ms. Cunnyngham, I will reference
your map. You don't have to put it back up there, so that any
of you gentlemen and ladies can answer the question that you
want to.
Just looking at the map, it looked like there were probably
some demographic differences between rural and urban places,
and if that is indeed the case, what is SNAP doing to address
them on the Federal level, and what are the states doing to
tailor their programs more to meet the differences in the need
in the demographics between a rural and an urban population?
Ms. Cunnyngham. That is a great question. States do have
more flexibility now to tailor the program in their state to
meet their population's needs. They do this through the
expanded categorical eligibility rules. They can set income
limits and, if they want, an asset limit for a household to
receive a TANF-funded noncash benefit and become categorically
eligible for SNAP. They still need to qualify for a benefit,
and that benefit depends on their income, but if a state thinks
that they ought to have a higher asset limit or no asset limit,
or if a state wants to set the gross income limit for
households with children slightly higher, or for households
that only have elderly or disabled people, they are able to do
that now through their categorical eligibility policies.
I am not aware of states specifically changing a program
for rural versus urban, but they can definitely meet the needs
of their population through----
Mr. Abraham. All right, and I will just follow, Mr.
Tordella, on your study of 25,000 people, what are the
demographics of the study? Was it urban, was it rural, was it
one particular state, was it several states across the nation,
where did your population of data come from?
Mr. Tordella. The study of 25,000 people is the Census
Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation, and it is
designed specifically to measure trends in social programs like
TANF, or----
Mr. Abraham. I understand that, but do we know the
demographics of the data? Was it mostly urban or mostly rural,
or a combination?
Mr. Tordella. It was a nationally representative sample.
And it started off with 52,000 households in 2008, and 25,000
households made it out the other end after having answered the
questions. Every 3 months, or every 4 months, about all the
people in their households. So they stuck it out with us.
Mr. Abraham. Okay.
Mr. Tordella. But in order to compensate for those losses,
if we had disproportionate losses in urban or rural places, we
weighted the data to compensate.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. And this is mainly just for the whole
panel, whoever wants to join in can answer the question. It is
my understanding that in the farm bill there is a pilot program
for employment and training that is available, and I guess the
question is, other Federal agencies also have these same types
of programs. Just your opinion as to how that will work in the
SNAP program as far as trying to get some of these folks a good
job.
Dr. Mills. I can just respond briefly. Of the households we
were looking at, and I am trying to tie your question to this
phenomenon of churn, about 40 percent of the households that
churn are households with earnings, and even higher in some of
these states. I think your question is really to the point of
how can we increase the percentage of households receiving SNAP
who have earnings. The evidence, and others can speak to this,
is mixed on the effect of such policy changes. Principally the
strength of the economy that increases the prospects for
employment that would enable households to mix benefits along
with earnings.
Mr. Abraham. I guess my question, and looking in your
crystal ball, do you think a program such as this would be
beneficial?
Dr. Ziliak. The issue is whether or not it is funded at the
appropriate level to provide the adequate level of training for
states to do it in an effective way in conjunction with the
SNAP program. I think the view of SNAP as a safety net, a food
assistance program and not a training program, is really kind
of the crux of the matter. And the issue is, historically,
there hasn't been the level of funding provided to the states
to support the training initiative. These new pilot programs
will certainly shed some light on the different types of
training opportunities available to this population.
Mr. Abraham. I am out of time, Madam Chair.
The Chairwoman. The chair recognizes Mr. Aguilar, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, and congratulations, Madam Chair
and Ranking Member. I look forward to these discussions.
Dr. Mills, if you could just continue to expand on that. I
was interested to know the high rate of churn among the
employed, which is kind of where you were going, I think. To
what do you attribute that to?
Dr. Mills. Well, in part, it is this natural phenomenon of
individuals whose attachment to the labor force is a bit
episodic, and we all know this, at the low income population,
individuals with lower skill levels often hold jobs for short
periods of time. They may take a job but then lose it soon
thereafter. So it really is a proper functioning of the program
in these situations, then when someone takes a job they go off
the program because they are ineligible, but then they lose
that job or maybe something else happens, maybe just hours are
reduced, they are once again eligible and they reapply, come
back on. However, in addition to that is the fact that there
are more procedural requirements for individuals with earnings,
to the extent that they have to provide verification of the
amount of their income and deductible expenses to determine
their net income on the program. So those requirements, whether
it be forms or paystubs or other forms of documentation, are
additional hurdles that one has to meet to stay on as an
earner.
The objective should be to try to encourage employment,
enable individuals to combine benefits from the program with
their earnings so that they can achieve some upward mobility.
To some degree, those procedural requirements, for income
documentation, for instance, are difficult ones for earners to
meet, and that is what causes some amount of churn.
Mr. Aguilar. Oftentimes, there can be barriers and they can
lead to additional churn, correct? So in the case where
somebody picks up an extra overtime shift and works a little
bit more, they could be deemed ineligible and contribute to the
churn rate as well?
Dr. Mills. That is true. I think what you are describing
though is this phenomenon of the program operating as it
should. So if you take more overtime hours and increase your
earnings so that your income exceeds the eligibility threshold
for the program, then properly, your benefits should be cut
off. And if the program is operating as it should----
Mr. Aguilar. In my opinion, unless it is seasonal work and
someone went over by $60--which is something that I did hear--
it isn't sustainable in that sense from their income
standpoint.
Dr. Mills. Yes. Well, that is a good point, and what you
are raising are what I consider the basic eligibility
requirements and rules for the program, those are clearly ones
that should be considered----
Mr. Aguilar. Sure.
Dr. Mills.--as options before you in trying to address the
problem of churn.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Thank you very much.
If I could switch gears a little bit. Dr. Ziliak, the 2014
Farm Bill established a new authority by the name of the
Healthy Food Financing Initiative, and the goal was, ``to
support efforts to provide access to healthy food by
establishing an initiative to improve access in underserved
areas, and to create and preserve quality jobs.'' Can you
explain how this program could affect SNAP participants as well
as those who live in food deserts?
Dr. Ziliak. That is a great question. The SNAP program, of
course, can be redeemed for a whole host of food stuffs at the
grocery store. Many of our low income families, especially in
urban areas, don't have ready access to the whole spectrum of
foods that make up the Thrifty Food Plan that underlies USDA's
plan for the SNAP benefit. Part of the goal, of course, with
this change in legislation is to improve access to a wider
array of healthy foods to some of these populations that we are
still in the field with some of these demonstration projects:
do people respond to these incentives to buy additional fruits
and vegetables, and there is some limited evidence so far that
they are showing some effect. There is a hopeful sign that if
you provide access to the food, that people will buy it.
Anything that we can do to improve access to nutritive food is
a positive step for the program.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
I will yield back, Madam Chair.
The Chairwoman. The chair recognizes Mr. Neugebauer, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, I thank the chair, and
congratulations to her and the Ranking Member.
Voice. Microphone.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you for holding this hearing. I think
this is a very positive thing for us to be looking at. It is a
program that has been growing exponentially over the years, and
what the statistics now indicate that one in seven Americans
are on food stamps. For us to analyze what is going on within
these folks, and more importantly hopefully, down the road, is
trying to figure out a way to make sure that folks have an
opportunity to move off of food stamps and to be self-
sufficient.
Mr. Tordella, in your testimony, you stated that
approximately 70 percent of the SNAP participants who exit the
program do so because of substantial increases in income, or
decreases in the number of family members. While these changes
make sense from why participants leave the program, I am
curious what your team was able to find out about the 30
percent of the participants that left SNAP. In other words, you
said 70 percent left for either more--made more money, or the
family size decreased, but those other 30 percent that left the
SNAP program, what did you learn about them?
Mr. Tordella. Unfortunately, we couldn't really learn
anything about them. The way that we analyzed the movements
onto and off of SNAP was to take a 4 month window before
somebody would go on, or a 4 month window after they went off,
in order to see if certain events occurred so that we could
associate those events. But we couldn't pin it down and say,
``Well, that event actually caused one thing, or caused them to
go onto or off of the program.''
Mr. Neugebauer. So how did you survey all of the people, in
other words, did you make a contact with that individual, did
you interview them or----
Mr. Tordella. This is a generic survey that covers a large
section of the American population, and it tracks them for a
period of 5 years, and actually tracked them from mid-2008
through the end of 2013. So it is trying to achieve many things
at once, which is why we don't have a specific set of
motivations for moving onto and off of SNAP, as you would like
to have.
Mr. Neugebauer. So how do you gather that data on a generic
basis?
Mr. Tordella. It is gathered by the Census Bureau on a
randomly selected sample, and they go out to these households
once every 4 months and ask a set of very detailed questions
about their income, occupation, education. This is for every
single individual, age, sex, race, program participation, and
their labor force participation, all those things all at once,
and different types of income. So it is kind of the
reprocessing of those data that allows us to infer what
happened.
Mr. Neugebauer. So what would your speculation be that if
my income didn't increase and my family size didn't decrease,
then--I mean I am trying to kind of get a feeling here where
those 30 percent of people went.
Mr. Tordella. Where did that other 30 percent go?
Unfortunately, I just don't have any empirical data that would
tell me----
Mr. Neugebauer. I think Dr. Mills has got his hand up.
Dr. Mills. Yes, thank you. If I could just add. Some of
those individuals are of the type that I was describing who
have procedural difficulties. So there has been no change in
their circumstances, their household composition and income has
remained unchanged, but at the time of the recertification,
they were unable to meet the procedural requirement to renew
their benefits. And so they do go off, many of them for only a
short period of time, and then they come back. So that is a
form of exit from the program that certainly is, in part,
explaining the 30 percent you referred to.
Mr. Neugebauer. And, Dr. Mills, you mentioned in your
testimony that overall, elderly or disabled members are less
likely than others to churn in and out of SNAP, and this is due
to them being able to wait longer to recertify. However, when
specifically focusing on households that churn due to
recertification, the opposite is true that these subpopulations
are more likely than others to churn. Can you elaborate on that
switch, and perhaps why you think this is how you see the
recertification process negatively?
Dr. Mills. Yes. It is a great question, and it is a
somewhat complex story and it is important to understand
because we are all concerned about food security for the
elderly and disabled population. These are individuals who are
typically assigned a longer recertification period in the
program; typically, 24 months rather than the normal 12. So in
that sense, they should be less vulnerable to these procedural
problems that I described because they are--within any given
year, it is less likely that they will have to renew their
benefits. However, if one looks at those who are subject to
recertification are reaching that moment in time where they do
have to meet the procedural requirements, individuals with
elderly or--households with elderly or disabled members are
more likely to churn, they are more likely than other
households to be unable to meet those requirements. It may be
issues of cognitive decline----
The Chairwoman. I am sorry, I have to stop you, Dr. Mills.
The gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. Mills. Yes.
The Chairwoman. The chair recognizes Ms. Lujan Grisham for
5 minutes.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I share my
congratulations with the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member, as
my colleagues have, and am delighted to be here. The SNAP
program and nutrition programs are very important to me. I
spent 17 years in state government as a cabinet secretary for
both the Department of Health and Aging, and worked diligently
to work on more coordinated benefits between general funded or
state funded programs for home-delivered meals, Federal dollars
for that, and the SNAP program so that it is not just one meal
a day, and 5 days a week, because we know it is untenable, it
is immoral, and it also creates significant health issues that
we pay for, all of us, later. Sometimes not that much later.
And so, Dr. Ziliak, I know many Members have touched on
this, but I want to go back to maybe the specifics related to
the composition of SNAP beneficiaries and what happens to them.
And in your testimony, you said that 47 percent of SNAP
participants who exited the program reenter within a year, and
that families return to SNAP more quickly than individuals
without children. And I wanted to hit on one of those.
One of those families that you described lives in the
district that I represent. LaNae Havens is a single mom, she
works full-time, doesn't make very much money, and she relies
on that small amount of benefit that she receives through SNAP
to provide for her son, Connor. Now, she described to me that
when she picks up extra hours or gets a promotion, then the
benefit is taken away. And we talked about that as the cliff
effect, and I wanted to really put that in perspective for
folks in the hearing. So here is the example. If a parent with
one child, working 40 hours per week, is earning the Federal
minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, they get a raise, say, in my
district, in Albuquerque, to the Albuquerque minimum wage at
$8.50, then she would receive $208 more per month in salary,
but she loses $683 in benefits. She sees a reduction in her
housing assistance, her SNAP benefits, and loses childcare
entirely. These parents are trying to do the right thing. They
are accepting these promotions, they are trying to get out of
poverty, they are going back to school, they are enrolling in
the required training and work program, they are doing it on
their own even when they are not required, they are seeking
better opportunities, and we pull them right back into poverty
because they lose the benefits, have to pay far more, or worse
yet, they don't have anything and now we have an unstable
household. So I want to support those parents that are making
some progress, and I don't think we ought to be taking these
benefits away.
Based on your studies, do you have recommendations for us
about how we can help these families transition into better
financial circumstances, without them having to lose everything
that we have put together to create that stability?
Dr. Ziliak. Perhaps when thinking about this single mother,
when she gets the raise, one of the things that was part of the
1996 welfare reform bill when moms were leaving AFTC and then
the TANF program, they would, at some point in time, lose
Medicaid, but it was usually offered for a year, okay,
transition. So if you want to think about some innovation on
SNAP, perhaps when there is an increase that makes them
ultimately perhaps ineligible, that there could be a transition
period, right, where they can maintain that support for some
period, 6 months, 12 months, into the future so that they don't
feel that cliff immediately, and so they can gradually--because
we do want people to move up the wage scale, right? There is no
question about that. And----
Ms. Lujan Grisham. And I am going to reclaim my time for a
moment. If that would be consistent with other benefit
programs, as you have identified, because the current system
does not incentivize. And I want to be careful that I am not
picturing or creating an environment in my discussion that my
constituents and others, purposely back off being promoted. It
is a hard life being at poverty or just above, and I can't
believe that anyone wants to be there, and yet we
disincentivize them because there is fear. And it may be that
we need flexibility in that protection for a year, and give
folks the sense that we really are trying to help them get that
leg up, because I don't think that they really believe that. It
is a very punitive environment. Once circumstance changes, if
you don't tell us, we will recoup and sue you and you won't be
able to do it ever again, you are barred, or we take everything
away from you and you fail.
Dr. Ziliak. So it turns out the research suggest that in
terms of, is SNAP a kind of a disincentive to work, and there
is--the program overall--is not a disincentive for people to
work, but there are people who reach a little higher up in that
income distribution, right, just before the SNAP benefit is to
be eliminated, and the size of their Earned Income Tax Credit
is being taxed away. Those are some of those individuals,
right, who are just about ready to make it, right, where those
benefits are being taken away at a relatively fast rate. So the
programs, we do see, certainly, some evidence of disincentive
for some of that population. Other of the population that they
combine where their Earned Income Tax Credit----
The Chairwoman. Excuse me. The gentlelady's time has
expired.
Dr. Ziliak. Sure.
The Chairwoman. The chair recognizes Mr. Benishek, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I, frankly, while I associate myself a bit with Ms. Lujan
Grisham in that there is a transition problem that we need to
address. I know there is a transition program that exists now
for a period of months, I believe, when this happens, but I am
not as familiar with that as I would like, but this is a common
problem. But I do want to address a question that I have
about--and I am not exactly sure how to handle it, but to me,
it seems like many of you are talking about fewer interactions
with the people that were receiving benefits, and the length
of--I don't know--I can't remember who it was that was talking
about the 3 hours that it took to--a caseworker to do benefits
with someone. Well, frankly, if we are going to have a program
that helps people get food, then we should be interacting with
them on a regular basis, and not just give them their benefit
for a year and then have them check in once a year to see if
there is a benefit. I think there should be like some
counseling going along with this, and that we should have a
regular interaction and not just, here are your benefits, see
you in a year or see you in 6 months. I think that there has to
be more to it than that. And, frankly, I didn't hear any of you
talk about anything like that, and so I--those are my comments.
But I want to hear a little bit more about the reporting
requirements in the--what exactly happens if somebody has a--
with the simplified monitoring and that--if somebody has an
increase in their income, are they supposed to call you, or
does the agency call them, or how does that work? Dr. Mills,
you seem to be----
Dr. Mills. If I could respond.
Mr. Benishek.--eager to answer that.
Dr. Mills. Yes. Typically, what occurs is an individual is
assigned a certification period, let us say 12 months. At the
end of that 12 months, there is a complete review of all
eligibility requirements that one needs to meet to remain on
the program. At 6 months, however, there is an interim report
that households would typically have to provide if they have a
change in their household composition, or a change in their
income that would alter their eligibility. So it is their
requirement, their obligation to provide that information to
the----
Mr. Benishek. What happens if they don't do that then? What
happens then?
Dr. Mills. Well, if they don't provide the report at all,
then they have failed to meet a procedural requirement and
would be removed from the program. If they provide the report
but it is inaccurate, they would receive an incorrect benefit.
They would continue to be on the program receiving a benefit
that could be too high or could be too low for them, and that
is what is picked up in these error rates that we were----
Mr. Benishek. Well, I guess I had a little bit of a
problem, and you referred to like filling out a form as a
hurdle. I have a--really, I have a problem with that attitude,
to tell you the truth, because I have to fill out a form to do
my taxes, and I just don't think of it as a hurdle, I think of
it as a requirement in order for me to be obeying the law.
Dr. Mills. Absolutely.
Mr. Benishek. And I just think that the attitude that there
is a hurdle is the wrong attitude because I don't like filling
out forms either, but the law requires me to do it. And to, I
don't know, change the way we do things so that it minimizes
the hurdles is contrary to having good oversight to the program
too.
Dr. Mills. Yes. No, you are really getting into a very
important point. I think the point I was trying to make is that
it is the information that we want from the client, in order to
accurately provide a benefit to them, and are there ways to
obtain that information with less burden upon the client. So
for instance, I mentioned call centers, using centralized
agency call centers so individuals don't have to----
Mr. Benishek. I don't understand what you mean by burden on
the client.
Dr. Mills. Well, I mean time and maybe out-of-pocket
expense in their having to travel to a local office, rather
than being able to provide information by phone. Some agencies
require a face-to-face interview with a caseworker, others
allow that interview to take place by phone.
Mr. Benishek. How often do you think that we should be
interacting with these people that need our help?
Dr. Mills. Yes. Well, the intervals of time are
appropriate. I think it is really more the form of the
interaction.
Mr. Benishek. So 6 months or a year then?
Dr. Mills. Yes. I think----
Mr. Benishek. Six months? Ms. Cunnyngham, what do you
think?
Ms. Cunnyngham. I think I would agree that that seems an
appropriate amount of time, given that households need to
report changes in their circumstances. If something happens, if
they have an increase in their income, if they get a different
benefit from another----
Mr. Benishek. I am sorry, when the Chairwoman starts
tapping, that means we have to stop.
The Chairwoman. The chair recognizes Mr. Moolenaar, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your
testimony today.
And I wanted to share with you a situation that I
experienced when I served in state government in Michigan, and
it has to do with a lottery winner who won in excess of $1
million, and was continuing to use food stamps, was encouraged
to do that by our Department of Human Services, saying that it
was part of the law. I ended up introducing a bill that
required notification to our Human Services Division, as well
as unemployment insurance agency of lottery award winners, and
I believe we have closed some kind of a loophole there because
it was considered more of an asset than an income. I know there
was some language in the farm bill that referenced lottery
winners and--ending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
benefits. If a member receives substantial gambling or lottery
winnings, and that is determined by USDA to what is
substantial, and then states shall establish agreements in the
situation, but they can actually continue to receive SNAP
benefits once they meet normal income and resource standards.
I guess my question is, are all the states different with
that regard, if there is a categorical eligibility and a state
determines that they don't have an asset test, how is that
handled state-to-state? Yes, sir.
Dr. Ziliak. Most states do have a limit, and it is not
unlimited in the SNAP program. And so there is some state
discretion. It is Federal law, right, for resource limits, and
then states apply for the waiver for those resource limits
until----
Mr. Moolenaar. What is the resource limit?
Dr. Ziliak. Federally for the nonelderly, nondisabled, it
is $2,000, and it is $3,000 for elderly and disabled: $3,250 I
believe today. And----
Mr. Moolenaar. Okay.
Dr. Ziliak.--it has been $2,000 since the early 1980s, so
that hasn't changed for a long time.
Mr. Moolenaar. I guess my question is, so in that case when
that person had won in excess of $1 million, the department was
saying that was acceptable to stay on----
Dr. Ziliak. At the time----
Mr. Moolenaar. That was in the last 5 years.
Dr. Ziliak. Right. At the time, the State of Michigan had
waived the asset limit. And so there are roughly \1/2\ dozen or
so states that had waived completely that--the asset test.
Mr. Moolenaar. Okay, are there states that have waived that
at this time?
Dr. Ziliak. Yes, I think that is--yes.
Mr. Moolenaar. How many states?
Ms. Cunnyngham. I could speak to that. There are about 39
states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands, that have broad-based categorical eligibility
programs, and only five of them currently have some kind of an
asset requirement to that.
Mr. Moolenaar. So the----
Ms. Cunnyngham. Now, that doesn't apply to everybody in the
state. There are some income limits there too, so it is
specific groups that the state has chosen to exempt from the
asset limit.
Mr. Moolenaar. So I guess what you are telling me is there
are a significant number of states that have waived the asset
limit? And so this could be happening in various states.
Ms. Cunnyngham. It could be. States have the option, and
Michigan is one of the states that did implement an asset----
Mr. Moolenaar. We changed it. Yes.
Ms. Cunnyngham. Yes. And several other states recently have
decided to implement an asset limit.
Mr. Moolenaar. So I guess my question is, you have done a
lot of studies on this, on the program, and you are talking
about the efficiencies, and some of the wording was, there
weren't many error rates and--would you have picked this up in
an error rate, or would that just be considered normal policy
implementation?
Dr. Mills. The household would have been considered
correctly paid because, by the rules that were in place at that
time, they were regarded as eligible.
Mr. Moolenaar. So when you say the program is being run
well, that is according to the criteria that would allow $1
million lottery winner to continue on food stamps?
Dr. Mills. That is how the quality control reviews are
conducted. They take the law, the regulation, and then say what
is the correct benefit, given those rules, to----
Mr. Moolenaar. Seems like that would need to change. Thank
you.
The Chairwoman. The chair recognizes Mrs. Hartzler, for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Hartzler. Sure. And I want to also congratulate you
and the Ranking Member. I am looking forward to working with
you on this very important issue, and thank you for being here
today.
As I start off with Dr. Mills, I worked with senior
citizens for quite a while over my life in different ways, and
I just wondered, can you explain further the pattern of SNAP
churn for households with the elderly? One would expect that
these households have a low rate of churn given their longer
certification periods and stable financial circumstances, but
if I understood right, your study finds that they are more
likely to churn compared to others facing recertification. So
can you expand on that please?
Dr. Mills. Yes. My comment in the testimony was with
respect to those who reached the point where required
certification must be made in order to renew their benefits. If
you look at individuals at that moment in time, and you ask
which are the ones who are more likely to churn, that is to
say, more likely to go off the program than come back,
households with elderly or disabled members are more likely to
lose benefits at that moment, but then come back onto the
program, suggesting that they were eligible throughout, but
simply were unable to meet the procedural requirement. So that
is the sense in which elderly or disabled individuals are more
vulnerable to churn than other types of SNAP recipients. It is
that--and the reasons are not altogether clear. We did conduct
focus groups with recipients. And here is where we get to the
issue of forms and documents and visits to the local office
that may be required, those may be difficult for older or
disabled individuals to meet those requirements, whether it is
their inability to drive, or other cognitive decline issues
that they are facing, the requirements are difficult for them
to meet.
Mrs. Hartzler. What is the percentage of elderly households
that are on SNAP? The general population.
Dr. Mills. I think I would defer to----
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay.
Dr. Mills.--others on that.
Mrs. Hartzler. Right.
Ms. Cunnyngham. I could give you the percentage of elderly
people who are eligible. I will need to get back to you with
that.
[The information referred to is located on p. 152.]
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay, that is certainly fine.
Dr. Ziliak. May I?
Mrs. Hartzler. Yes.
Dr. Ziliak. It is 35 percent of eligible seniors are on the
program today. So given that they meet the income and asset
limits, all right, only 35 percent of those who are currently
eligible participate.
Mrs. Hartzler. So you are saying----
Dr. Ziliak. So it is very low.
Mrs. Hartzler.--there are 65 percent of elderly out there
who qualify, but they are--they don't receive the benefits.
Dr. Ziliak. That is correct.
Mrs. Hartzler. And what would you attribute that to? Just
the barriers of the paperwork?
Dr. Ziliak. A lot of it is barriers. Some of it could be
mobility issues for them as seniors. Some of it could be that
the benefit, the minimum benefit is $16, and so----
Mrs. Hartzler. Yes.
Dr. Ziliak.--at the end of the day, the benefit might be
too low for them, given the costs associated with applying.
Mrs. Hartzler. Yes. Or just pride.
Dr. Ziliak. Or pride.
Mrs. Hartzler. But----
Dr. Ziliak. Yes.
Mrs. Hartzler.--and how did you get that number?
Dr. Ziliak. It is from the quality control data. From the
SNAP administrative quality control data.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Switching gears a little bit, and to
open up to any of you who would like to answer, how has the
income structure for SNAP households evolved? So has there been
a change in the household structure over the years, and is that
related? Maybe start with Mr. Tordella. You have done your
longitudinal study.
Mr. Tordella. Well, over time, the--I am sorry. There has
been a drop for individuals and families with income. They
have--during our study period--they actually had a drop in
their average monthly entry rate, which decreased the growth in
that size. So the people who have earnings, who do have some
earnings, are leaving the program, or accounting for fewer.
Mrs. Hartzler. Anybody else want to weigh in on that?
Ms. Cunnyngham. Sure. Looking at the percentage of
households who have earnings, that has increased slightly in
the last decade or so. In 2004, about 29 percent of SNAP
households had someone in the household with a job, and that
has gone up to 31 percent now. So that is a change. We also see
that the percentage of the caseload that has income under 50
percent of the poverty guideline is slightly increasing, as is
the percentage of the caseload that has income over 100 percent
of the poverty guideline.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you very much.
The Chairwoman. The chair recognizes Mr. Yoho, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam Chair. Congratulations. Since we
came in together, I am impressed with you. And I look forward
to listening to you because I know the concern in this
Committee is, like we talked about yesterday, there is a
certain percentage of people on the nutritional programs that
we have seen are working the system, some are taking advantage
of it, and we need to reform it for those people that truly
need it. I mean that is, I think what everybody on here is for.
We want the best program we can so that people get the best
nutrition they can while they need that.
And, Ms. Cunnyngham, I was reading my notes, and I need
some help with the math here, since you are from the
mathematics part of this. In 2013, I have 44 percent of the
people who were less than 18 that were on SNAP, 18 years of
age, nine percent were over 60 years of age, and ten percent
were disabled. What accounts for the other 37 percent because
that wasn't mentioned? Who are those?
Ms. Cunnyngham. The numbers that I gave in my testimony
were for households with children, elderly people, or people
with disabilities. If I could just talk about participants
here, the percentage of participants who are children is now 44
percent. The percentage that are elderly, that is nine percent.
And the percentage that are nonelderly adults, that are 18 to
59, is 46 percent. The percentage that are disabled, that
includes children and nonelderly adults, is 20 percent. So----
Mr. Yoho. Does that add up to 100? I didn't write those
down. I am sorry.
Ms. Cunnyngham. Well, the percentage that is the disabled
is an overlap between children and nonelderly, but----
Mr. Yoho. All right. Is there a place that I can get the
breakout of that so I can see 100 percent who is on this?
Ms. Cunnyngham. Absolutely.
[The information referred to is located on p. 153.]
Mr. Yoho. Okay. We will get that later.
Ms. Cunnyngham. Our characteristics report.
Mr. Yoho. That is great. And then we were talking about the
churn rate, and I had in my notes here also that there was a
self-reporting, and I think it was Mr. Abraham was talking
about this and Mr. Benishek, about the self-reporting. Do you
feel that is something that is adequate, or does there need to
be, as Mr. Benishek brought up somebody working with them? And
I bring that up strictly for this. We had a Section 8 house
that we rented out to a family, there were about eight kids in
that family. Single mother, she was working, and as she was
working, making more money, the benefits she was receiving
dropped in relationship to the amount she had. It was a monthly
thing that she was checking in on. And in order to wean people
off of this, because my next question is, as I will come to in
a minute, what happens is people start working, and then if we
are taking money away from them, as they are trying to get out
of that hole, they never get out of the hole because we have a
thumb on them. And what I want to hear from you is what you
guys think we should do, how to reform that program so we want
people into the--we actually--we don't want them in there, we
would rather have everybody off of it and self-sufficient, but
we know that is not going to happen, but the people that get in
there, we want them up and out so that they are on their own
and they are living a better quality of life. How do we do that
in a reform of a program like this? I will start with you, Ms.
Cunnyngham. Sorry.
Ms. Cunnyngham. Well, currently, there is an earned income
deduction, so 20 percent of a household's earnings is deducted
from their gross income and not considered in their benefit
determination. So I suppose if you wanted to encourage work,
and to----
Mr. Yoho. Which I do.
Ms. Cunnyngham. Yes. And ease that drop-off, one
possibility would be to look at the percentage of earnings
that----
Mr. Yoho. Well, and one of the statements that I--or
statistics I had, 70 percent of the SNAP households had no
income in 2013.
Dr. Mills, if you would, how do we change that program so
that we can get people in, up and out?
Dr. Mills. Yes. Well, part of getting up and out is
combining, I would say, the value of benefits from the program
with your earnings so that you can sufficiently make ends meet,
save, educate yourself, take advantage of opportunities.
Mr. Yoho. We say those things, but what are we doing to
make sure that happens?
Dr. Mills. Yes. Well, I think----
Mr. Yoho. Is there a mandatory requirement that you better
your lot in life with education or skills that you learn on
these programs?
Dr. Mills. Yes.
Mr. Yoho. Because I saw the average person on them is on
there, once they enter, it is 8 years.
Dr. Mills. Well, that is of those who are measured at any
single point in time, but as Mr. Tordella indicated, of those
who come in at any given point in time, if you look then a year
later, \1/2\ of those individuals have left.
Mr. Yoho. And I know we are out of time, but I look forward
to getting more information so that we can fix these programs.
Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you to all the members of the panel.
I definitely appreciate your expertise. Thank you to the
Members that were here that had a chance to ask questions. And
the chair wants to give just a brief closing statement, Mr.
McGovern and myself 35 seconds.
Mr. McGovern, 35 seconds.
Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you very much. Thank you very
much for being here. I have learned a lot.
I want to clear up a few things for the record.
Millionaires on SNAP. It is not a problem. We fixed it in the
farm bill. It is right here. And to be honest with you, if I
was a millionaire, I don't know why I would want to be on SNAP.
It is a nonissue.
We have learned a lot here today, one, that there are very
few ineligible people on the program; two, that this is a very
efficiently run program; and three, that many families lose
benefits because of the procedural problems.
And to Mr. Benishek's issue about burdens, it is a burden
for somebody to go in person to an office that may not be near
where they live, and sit there and wait for sometimes 3 to 4
hours for this process to take place, and if they are working,
getting permission to leave their job to be able to do that. So
it is a burden.
And then the final thing I would say is that Ms. Lujan
Grisham raised the issue of the cliff. There are some things
that we are doing to address that, but this is a wider
discussion. The SNAP program is a food program. It is not a job
training program. It is not a jobs program. And we need to make
sure that everybody in this country has access to food. Food
ought to be a right, and this is a program that works, and I
thank the chair for the generous 35 seconds.
The Chairwoman. I think you went to 40, but it is okay.
And I just want to say this. I think what we saw here today
is exactly why we need to have this discussion. I think back to
my original question on: are we really meeting the needs of
families, are we doing enough, are we in touch enough, are we
really moving people from a program to being able to put them
in a position of success, if they fall back, are we there, do
we know that. And I think that that is the validity of exactly
why we are here. I appreciate the discussion on both sides. I
appreciate, again, your expertise. And the reason these
hearings are so valuable is to be able to hear fact, be able
for Members to ask questions, and then to have a dialogue at a
level that there is a give-and-take of understanding that our
goal is to remove the obstacles, and make sure that every child
and adult in this country has the opportunity to have a
nutritious meal.
And with that, I would tell you that Members are voting.
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 hearing of the Subcommittee on Nutrition, is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Reports by Hon. Jackie Walorski, a Representative in Congress
from Indiana
Insert 1
Lottery Match Report 2014
Department of Human Services
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
October 2014
Dear Members of the Michigan Legislature:
We are pleased to highlight the Lottery Match accomplishments in
the past year. This report builds on the first Lottery Match report DHS
issued in the spring of 2013.
The premise behind Lottery Match is simple: Be a good steward of
taxpayer dollars and stop those gaming the system to help those most in
need.
Under Public Act 77 of 2012, a weekly cross-check allows DHS to
accurately evaluate a recipient's eligibility since lottery winnings
can be considered assets in some instances--like the Food Assistance
Program and State Emergency Relief (SER). Asset tests are now conducted
in these areas.
Some 7,216 Michigan Lottery winners of $1,000 or more were matched
and identified in 2013 as living in households that were receiving some
sort of public assistance. This adds up to nearly $44 million in
lottery proceeds with average lottery winnings of $6,056 per case.
Federal and/or state law still prohibits closure of many assistance
benefits to the majority of Michigan lottery winners who are matched.
This means a multi-million dollar lottery winner can still qualify for
certain assistance and benefits.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Clearly, there is potential for big savings should regulations be
changed to allow for lottery winnings to be considered assets when
determining eligibility for certain Federal assistance programs.
Of these total cases, DHS closed 810 cases receiving 977 benefits
among recipients who had lottery winnings of more than $1,000. Most of
these benefits closures involved food assistance, followed by Medicaid.
While modest when compared to the total number of lottery winners who
also receive assistance, these closed cases represent nearly $2 million
in savings.
When state and Federal law allows a recipient's benefits to be
closed due to lottery winnings, the benefits have been closed.
Big Lottery Winners = Benefits Closure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In 2013, 18 lottery winners of jackpots valued at $100,000 or more
were receiving public assistance benefits in Michigan at the time they
won. Seven of those cases involved Food Assistance Program benefits,
including one in which the lottery winnings were in the millions.
Thanks to the Lottery Match law, DHS quickly closed that case.
Recently, an even larger winner of more than $4 million was
identified rapidly thanks to the match. That recipient's food
assistance case was also shut down immediately.
Where allowed by law through the Lottery Match, DHS continues to
successfully identify and close assistance benefits.
Early Identification = Quicker Closure
With the match, DHS has improved the rate and shortened the time
frame it takes to identify winners.
In addition, DHS frontline workers are often identifying winnings
before the client has reported them to DHS, as they are all required to
do.
DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) agents take a closer look at
all cases involving winnings of $5,000 or more.
OIG reports very few cases where the frontline lottery match failed
to identify and close a case the first time through.
By quickly identifying lottery jackpot winners, DHS has identified
another area of potential savings--households containing both lottery
jackpot winners and clients who claim to buy and prepare their meals
separately. Eliminating duplicate food assistance groups in one
household could result in significant savings.
Farm Bill of 2014
The most recent farm bill merits a special mention for a current
reform opportunity on the Federal level. The major item pertaining to
the lottery is this directive from section 4009 (emphasis added below):
``Any household in which a member receives substantial
lottery or gambling winnings, as determined by the Secretary,
shall lose eligibility for benefits immediately upon receipt of
the winnings.''
This would constitute a major change from the current stance
related to food assistance. While Federal regulations that would
implement this section have not yet been written, this change to
Federal law is an important step in the right direction toward
curtailing fraud/waste of public assistance dollars.
Strengthening State Law
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DHS appreciates the continued partnership with the Michigan
Legislature in the effort toward reform and change. After the release
of the first Lottery Match report in 2013, Members in both the Michigan
House and Senate expressed interest in doing more and the following
legislation was introduced:
SB 338 (Emmons)--Requires an asset test for the Child Development
Care program, now housed in the Michigan Department of Education.
SB 339 (Moolenaar)--Requires the payback of certain public
assistance through means of a lottery intercept.
SB 384 (Moolenaar)--Allows for the withholding of a lottery prize
over $600 consistent with SB 339.
HB 4855 (Kurtz)--Allows for the withholding and intercept of
lottery prizes over $1,000 for debts owed to DHS.
Each will help DHS ensure that taxpayer dollars are used
efficiently and effectively, and targeted to those most in need. DHS
looks forward to continuing to work with sponsors and supporters of
these bills as they move through the legislative process.
Next Steps
With many lottery winners either receiving assistance benefits or
living in a household where others receive benefits, the integrity of
state and Federal safety net programs is still at risk.
Taxpayers do not like it when people game the system. They
rightfully reject the premise that those who have won thousands of
dollars should continue to benefit from programs aimed at providing a
helping hand to the truly needy.
The data available by cross-checking lottery winners with benefits
recipients in this latest report indicates more than ten percent of the
winners will be required to put their proceeds towards self-
sufficiency. While the lottery match works, Federal and state law often
conflict, prohibiting an asset test in some instances and allowing
recipients with thousands of dollars at their disposal to continue on
assistance.
DHS will continue to advocate for change, advocate for clients who
strive toward self-sufficiency and advocate always for maintaining the
integrity of these vitally important assistance programs.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Maura D. Corrigan,
Director of the Michigan Department of Human Services.
Insert 2
Department of Human Services
Preserving Assistance for Our State's Truly Needy
Calendar Year 2012 Report
Lottery Winners and Welfare Programs: Verifying Assistance Program
Eligibility for Lottery Winners
In April 2012, Public Act 77 of 2012 became effective, requiring
the Michigan Department of Treasury and the Department of Human
Services to automatically crosscheck lottery winners with people
receiving welfare benefits. Lottery winnings are an asset. With asset
tests in place for programs including food assistance and state
emergency relief, this monthly cross-check allows DHS to more
efficiently evaluate a recipient's eligibility.
The data collected thus far is sobering:
Nearly 14 percent of all lottery winners are either welfare
recipients themselves or reside in a household with welfare
recipients.
Of the 3,544 lottery winners who were identified as welfare
recipients or living with welfare recipients between April 2012
and December 2012, DHS was able to close only 565 cases. In the
vast majority of these cases, Federal policy prohibited closure
despite sometimes large winnings.
Those recipients accounted for $24,101,074 in lottery
winnings during that time frame, an average of $6,800 per case.
Welfare benefits should be preserved for those truly in need. The
lottery cross-check legislation has provided DHS with a valuable tool.
It has also highlighted policies Federal and state authorities should
change to protect the integrity of welfare programs.
An Overview of Welfare Programs with Asset Limits
Some welfare programs allow for--and have established--asset
limits:
Food Assistance Program
Family Independence Program (cash assistance)
Most Medicaid programs
State Emergency Relief
State Disability Assistance
Refugee Assistance Program
But other welfare programs do not have asset testing, including
Child Development and Care (CDC), certain Medicaid programs like
Healthy Kids, Group 2 Pregnant Women, Transitional Medical Assistance
Plus (TMA-Plus) and the Refugee Assistance Program for Medical.
The absence of any asset limits and other policies creates
significant barriers to the preservation of welfare dollars for the
truly needy.
In reviewing the data surrounding our lottery crosscheck policy,
DHS has identified three primary barriers.
Barrier One:
Medical Assistance Programs That Lack Asset Tests
The major hurdle with respect to these programs is that any changes
that would require an asset test are impeded by Federal Medicaid law
and the recent Affordable Care Act. These limit the states' abilities
to change eligibility standards for Medicaid. To add an asset test to
Healthy Kids' eligibility criteria would make it more restrictive than
it now is. Similarly, the Affordable Care Act's maintenance of effort
requirements prevent states from scaling back their coverage during the
period in which the new health care program rolls out.
The four primary medical programs without any asset test are:
Healthy Kids \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/bem/125.pdf; http://
www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/bem/129.pdf; http://
www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/bem/131.pdf.
Healthy Kids for Pregnant Women \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/bem/126.pdf.
Transitional Medicaid Plus \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/bem/647.pdf.
Refugee Medical Assistance \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/bem/630.pdf.
Scenario: [1]
Medical Assistance Programs That Lack Asset Tests
While pregnant and receiving Medicaid through the Healthy Kids and
Pregnant Women Program, Sue Smith won $300,000 in the Michigan Lottery.
Despite her significant winnings, Federal policy required that Ms.
Smith continue to receive Medicaid. Ms. Smith's coverage continued for
2 months past the birth of her son, as required by policy. Her son
continued to receive Medicaid for 1 year past his birth. The Medicaid
capitation rate is $268 monthly, which equates to a potential benefit
cost of $6,164 for the two recipients regardless of the $300,000
lottery winning.
The Medicaid capitation rate is $268 monthly, which equates to a
potential benefit cost of $6,164 for the two recipients regardless of
the $300,000 lottery winning.
Barrier Two:
Child Development and Care Does Not Allow for Asset Tests \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/bem/400.pdf.
Child Development and Care (CDC) is a program formerly housed
within DHS and now administered by the Michigan Department of Education
(MDE). While the state has the ability to require an asset test,
Michigan currently has no asset test in place for the CDC program.
Scenario: [1]
Child Development and Care Does Not Allow for Asset Tests
John Smith currently receives CDC benefits for his three children.
He recently won $33,000 in the Michigan Lottery, but continues to
receive welfare in the form of child care benefits.
Because CDC does not have an asset test, the Smith family will
continue to receive $1,000 in child care assistance each month.
Barrier Three:
The FNS Buy and Prepare Statute for Food Assistance
USDA Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) under Federal law
[2] requires states to consider a person who ``customarily
purchases food and prepares meals for home consumption separate and
apart from the others'' as a distinct household group, even though they
may reside in the same house with others.
This allows a lottery winner to have an individual case isolated
from other household members, while other persons within the home
continue receiving benefits.
It also opens the door to fraud and abuse within the Food
Assistance Program. By creating distinct groups within the home,
recipients can drastically increase the amount of food assistance
received. The difference can total hundreds of dollars per month.
Eligibility specialists are now required to ask the ``buy and
prepare'' question in a manner that leads the applicants to answer most
often that, indeed, they do buy and prepare their food separately.
While Office of Inspector General agents investigate these cases
aggressively, it is obviously difficult to prove that the household
does buy and prepare their food together.
Scenario: [1]
The FNS Buy and Prepare Policy for Food Assistance
Robert Jones lives in a home with his two adult children. Mr. Jones
recently won $125,000 in the Michigan Lottery. While the asset test
affected Mr. Jones' food assistance benefit, it did not affect his
children's individual benefits.
By declaring that he, his daughter and his son each purchase and
prepare their food separately, the household will continue to receive
$400 per month in Federal food assistance regardless of Mr. Jones
$125,000 lottery winning.
Households in which several individuals with children reside can
potentially receive thousands of dollars of monthly benefits by
claiming that each group purchases and prepares food separately.
Opportunities:
Two current examples may show the path forward:
New York Lottery Intercept Program
New York uses a lottery intercept program for the repayment of
public assistance under state law. This program is established
specifically for the New York Department of Social Services. Under
current New York law and code,[3] up to 50% of any lottery
prize of $600 or more is intercepted from any individual who has
received public assistance benefits within a period of up to 10 years
prior to the issuance of the prize. This legislation was passed in 1995
and took effect April 1996. The philosophy in New York focuses on the
repayment of all assistance, not only on debts or overpayments from
public assistance. The proceeds from the intercept are applied to a
client's oldest eligible assistance payment first, and payments issued
to a client under the age of 21 are excluded. The lottery winner is
afforded certain protections, including notice. In the first year of
operation, the intercept collected over $1.5 million; over $3.7 million
was collected in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Since 1996, the lottery
intercept has collected more than $33 million.
Opportunities:
Michigan: Unemployment Insurance Agency, amendment to the Lottery
Act.
Michigan also uses a lottery intercept system. At the end of the
2011-2012 legislative session, the Unemployment Insurance Agency led
efforts to successfully pass legislation [4] that amended
the Lottery Act. This amendment requires payment of a lottery winner's
unemployment compensation debt from a prize of $1,000 or more, after
other priority distributions of the prize are made. The following
priority of payments exists under the current Lottery Act: first, to
any liability to the state, other than an assigned delinquent account
owed to a court or an unemployment compensation debt; second, to any
support arrearage; third, to any unemployment compensation debt;
fourth, to any assigned delinquent account of money due to a court,
and; fifth, to the lottery winner, if any balance remains. Michigan
also provides protections to the individual, including notice
provisions.
Opportunities:
DHS suggests statutory changes similar to that taken with the UIA
as a first step.
DHS will continue to evaluate how best to implement New York's
approach as well.
DHS officials will seek Congressional action to revise the current
definition, under Federal law,[5] of what constitutes a
household group.
Each of these steps will help us in our efforts to ensure that
taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and effectively, and can be
targeted to those most in need.
Conclusion
With 14 percent of lottery winners receiving welfare benefits or
living in a household where others receive welfare benefits, the
integrity of both state and Federal safety net programs is threatened.
Taxpayers rightfully reject the premise that those who have won
thousands of dollars should still benefit from the programs aimed at
providing a helping hand to the needy.
The data available by cross-checking lottery winners with welfare
recipients is telling. Only \1/3\ of those who have won the lottery
while receiving welfare will be required to put those winnings toward
self-sufficiency. Federal and state policies often prohibit the
application of an asset test, allowing recipients with thousands of
dollars at their disposal to continue on welfare.
It is equally troubling that current Federal law encourages
families to indicate they purchase and prepare their food separately in
order to exponentially increase the food assistance received by the
household.
It is time to advocate for change, for self-sufficiency and for the
integrity of these important programs.
Nearly \2/3\ of Lottery Winners Continue to Receive Welfare Benefits Because of Federal and State Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verifying Assistance Program Eligibility for Lottery Winners
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winner is a
Case Reviewed member of the
Winning Value Number of Number of Cases Case Closed for But Still Open household, but
Clients Closed Other Reasons Due to Policy not active on the
case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,000-$2,000 791 41 105 602 43
$2,001-$4,000 1,775 214 262 1,181 118
$4,001-$5,000 385 109 65 174 37
$5,001-$9,999 265 92 51 105 17
$10,000-$14,999 130 43 28 55 4
$15,000-$29,999 137 43 28 52 14
$30,000-$100,000 37 16 5 7 9
More than $100,000 24 7 5 7 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............... 3,544 565 549 2,183 247
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Endnotes]
[1] The scenario is based on an investigation by the
Office of Inspector General. Identifying information has been changed
for privacy protection.
[2] 7 U.S.C. 2012(n)(1); 7 CFR 273.1(a).
[3] NY CLS Soc. Serv. ( 131-r) NY CLS Tax Law ( 1613-
b) and NY code (18 NYCRR 396.1).
[4] MCL 432.32.
[5] 7 U.S.C. 2012(n)(1); 7 CFR 273.1(a).
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Jackie Walorski, a Representative in Congress
from Indiana
December 18, 2014
Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Lucas and Mr. Conaway:
I write to ask that the House Committee on Agriculture recommend a
definition of the term ``substantial'' within the regulations to be
promulgated by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) under Section 4009
of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the Act). The Act was signed into law
on February 7, 2014. Under section 4009, the Secretary of the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was tasked with defining the
term substantial. Ten months after the passage of the Act, the USDA has
not outlined the steps for the implementation of this provision nor
defined the term substantial. We remain troubled by substantial lottery
winners who continue to receive public assistance benefits despite the
new legislation.
Michigan seeks your help to make sure the law is implemented as
intended. In this letter, we address three subjects. First, we offer a
definition of ``substantial'' as required by Section 4009 based on
Michigan's experience. We then discuss the impact Section 4009 will
have on traditional categorically eligible groups who win the lottery,
and finally note our ongoing concerns with the ``purchase and prepare''
provision. We hope our thinking assists you!
I. Section 4009 of the Agricultural Act of 2014
The newly passed law provides:
(a) In General.--Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015) (as amended by section
4008) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(s) Ineligibility for Benefits Due to
Receipt of Substantial Lottery or Gambling
Winnings.--
``(1) In general.--Any household in which a
member receives substantial lottery or gambling
winnings, as determined by the Secretary, shall
lose eligibility for benefits immediately upon
receipt of the winnings.
``(2) Duration of ineligibility.--A household
described in paragraph (1) shall remain
ineligible for participation until the
household meets the allowable financial
resources and income eligibility requirements
under subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i),
(k), (l), (m), and (n) of section 5.
``(3) Agreements.--As determined by the
Secretary, each State agency, to the maximum
extent practicable, shall establish agreements
with entities responsible for the regulation or
sponsorship of gaming in the State to determine
whether individuals participating in the
supplemental nutrition assistance program have
received substantial lottery or gambling
winnings.''.
A. Defining the Term ``Substantial''
We believe that the term ``substantial'' lottery winnings should be
defined as a household where gross lottery winnings are greater than
$5,000. The maximum allowable amount of assets a household can have in
Michigan is $5,000. Michigan chose this asset limit by adjusting the
maximum allowable amount found at 7 CFR 273.8(b) for the rate of
inflation. Further, in determining whether selling a jointly held asset
would yield a ``significant return'' or ``any significant amount of
funds'' for a household applying for food assistance, 7 CFR
273.8(d)(18)(i) and (ii) define both a ``significant return'' and ``any
significant amount of funds'' as any amount greater than $1,500. The
terms ``significant'' and ``substantial'' are synonymous. Again,
accounting for inflation, $5,000 is consistent with the amount
considered ``significant'' for this FNS regulation as well. I note that
Texas also has an asset limit of $5,000 for food assistance benefits.
We used Texas as our model.
The Michigan Legislature passed Public Act 77 of 2012, which
requires the Michigan Lottery to disclose the names and other
identifying information of lottery winners to the Michigan Department
of Human Services (OHS) within 7 days of paying out lottery winnings of
$1,000 or greater. This match program allows OHS to determine whether
lottery winners are receiving public assistance. In Michigan, the
supplemental nutrition assistance program is called the Food Assistance
Program (FAP). In calendar year 2013, of the 5,383 FAP lottery winners,
we closed 566 FAP lottery winners cases; based on the average food
assistance benefit per household, we saved taxpayers $137,906 each
month in food assistance benefits.
On the basis of Michigan's success with the lottery match and the
$5,000 asset limit, we suggest that FNS adopt $5,000 as the threshold
definition of the term ``substantial.''
B. Traditional Categorically Eligible Groups
Under 7 U.S.C. 2014(a), traditional categorically eligible groups
are established when all members of a household receive one of the
following: social security benefits; state disability benefits; or
benefits under a general assistance program which is administered by
the state or a local government. In Michigan, the state administers a
general assistance program called Family Independence Program (FIP)
that grants categorical eligibility for FAP. Traditional categorically
eligible groups cannot contain any members who are disqualified because
of: (1) an intentional program violation; (2) an employment-related
activity; or (3) a drug-related felony.
7 U.S.C. 2014(j) allows for ``resource exemption for otherwise
exempt households'' as it provides that a household member who receives
social security benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act
(SSA), aid to the aged, blind, or disabled under titles I, II, X, XIV,
or XVI of the SSA, or who receives state benefits funded under part A
of Title IV of the SSA is considered ``to have satisfied the resource
limitations prescribed under subsection (g).'' 7 U.S.C. 2014(g)
prevents us from applying an asset test to these traditional
categorically eligible groups for purposes of FAP. Regrettably, we
cannot close cases of many huge lottery winners because FAP has no
asset test. (In 2014, five cases worth $1 million.) For example, a
Michigan lottery winner on our rolls won more than $20 million. Because
of subsection (j), that individual remains eligible until his SSI
closes, even though Michigan has a $5,000 asset limit.
However, 7 U.S.C. 2015(a) states that ``[i]n addition to meeting
the standards of eligibility prescribed in section 5 of this Act [7
U.S.C. 2014], households and individuals who are members of eligible
households must also meet and comply with the specific requirements of
this section to be eligible for participation in the supplemental
nutrition assistance program.'' (Emphasis added.) The new lottery
provision found in section 4009 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 was
inserted into 7 U.S.C. 2015 as subsection 2015(s). Therefore,
presumably, lottery and casino gambling winners with ``substantial''
lottery winnings will immediately lose their FAP benefits, whether or
not the household is categorically eligible. This should help remedy
the situation of the lottery winners who continue to receive FAP only
because these winners also receive SSI benefits. We cannot take action
in five cases because FNS has not defined the term ``substantial.''
II. Michigan's Ongoing Concerns
A. Purchase and Prepare
Michigan remains concerned with the ``purchase and prepare''
provision, 7 U.S.C. 2012, which provides in part:
[(n)(1)] ``Household'' means--
(A) an individual who lives alone or who, while
living with others, customarily purchases food and
prepares meals for home consumption separate and apart
from the others; or
(B) a group of individuals who live together and
customarily purchase food and prepare meals together
for home consumption. [Subsection 2012(n)(1).]
The corresponding Federal regulation, 7 CFR 273.1, states as
follows:
[(a) General household definition.] A household is composed
of one of the following individuals or groups of individuals [,
unless otherwise specified in paragraph (b) of this section]
[:]
(1) An individual living alone;
(2) An individual living with others, but customarily
purchasing food and preparing meals for home
consumption separate and apart from others; or
(3) A group of individuals who live together and
customarily purchase food and prepare meals together
for home consumption.
This language promotes significant opportunities for fraud and
abuse because it creates distinct groups within a single home/
residence. Abuses arise when lottery winners live in the same household
but are not considered part of the household for FAP purposes. The
other members in the same household continue receiving benefits by
claiming that the lottery winner purchases and prepares food
separately. This past year substantial lottery winnings did not result
in case closure in 2,551 cases because the winners claimed they were
not ``active on the case,'' i.e., they ``purchased and prepared'' their
food separately. For example, a FAP recipient/lottery winner lives with
a parent. This recipient denies purchasing and preparing food with the
parent. However, this parent won multiple lottery drawings with amounts
totaling almost $200,000 in the first 6 months of 2014. The FAP
recipient continues to receive benefits even though she lives with her
parent and this parent has won multiple, substantial amounts of money
in the lottery. Unfortunately, the current language of section 4009
allows this abuse to occur.
We believe that the definition of ``household,'' for purposes of
determining FAP eligibility, should be revised, so that all persons
living in the same household are considered one group. The current
``purchase and prepare'' language creates unfortunate loopholes that
allow abuse.
If you have any questions or concerns about the information
provided above, or if the Michigan OHS can assist in any other way,
please do not hesitate to contact me at [Redacted] or Katie Zeiter at
[Redacted].
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Maura D. Corrigan,
CC:
Matt Weidinger,
Honorable Dave Camp,
Honorable Paul Ryan,
Jason Turner,
Eloise Anderson,
SIG Secretaries,
Matt Schertz,
Anne DeCesaro.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Hon. James P. McGovern, a
Representative in Congress from Massachusetts
Section 4009 of Public Law 113-79, The Agricultural Act of 2014
SEC. 4009. ENDING SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BENEFITS
FOR LOTTERY OR GAMBLING WINNERS.
(a) In General.--Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2015) (as amended by section 4008) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(s) Ineligibility for Benefits Due to Receipt of
Substantial Lottery or Gambling Winnings.--
``(1) In general.--Any household in which a member
receives substantial lottery or gambling winnings, as
determined by the Secretary, shall lose eligibility for
benefits immediately upon receipt of the winnings.
``(2) Duration of ineligibility.--A household
described in paragraph (1) shall remain ineligible for
participation until the household meets the allowable
financial resources and income eligibility requirements
under subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (k),
(l), (m), and (n) of section 5.
``(3) Agreements.--As determined by the Secretary,
each State agency, to the maximum extent practicable,
shall establish agreements with entities responsible
for the regulation or sponsorship of gaming in the
State to determine whether individuals participating in
the supplemental nutrition assistance program have
received substantial lottery or gambling winnings.''.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Karen Cunnyngham, Senior
Researcher, Mathematica Policy Research
On February 26, 2015 Karen Cunnyngham, Senior Researcher at
Mathematica Policy Research, testified before the House Committee on
Agriculture, Subcommittee on Nutrition at a hearing to review
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipient
characteristics and dynamics. As a supplement to her written testimony,
Ms. Cunnyngham submits to the Committee the following data tables and
annotated bibliography in response to three open-ended questions which
arose during the hearing. Should any Committee Members or staff have
additional questions, Ms. Cunnyngham can be reached at [Redacted].
Insert 1
Mr. Davis. That is okay. I hopefully won't talk the entire
time. I actually want to hear some information out of the
panel.
Thank you for being here. Hopefully, what you have seen in
the last 30 seconds is we actually do like to have fun up here.
I am a big supporter of children who are hungry getting
access to the food and nutrition that they need, through the
SNAP program or other programs, and I know that in the opening
testimony, Ms. Cunnyngham, that you had mentioned some of the
other programs that feed children and those who are in need of
hunger assistance, besides SNAP. Can--and this goes to the
whole panel. Is there any way, can you elaborate on some of the
other programs that are available? Like I know I visited some
schools, some summer lunch sites, during the summertime to feed
kids who were part of the School Nutrition Program. And just
one observation on the program that you decide to talk about
that you think we can do as a Congress to make them more
effective and more better. So we will start with you, ma'am.
Ms. Cunnyngham. Sure. Well, there is the National School
Lunch Program. There is the School Breakfast Program which is
expanding in recent years. It serves breakfast to hungry
children. There is the Summer Feeding Program that you
discussed. In terms of recommendations, I know that there is a
wealth of research out on those programs, and I can provide you
some of those studies. I don't have recommendations myself, but
I do hope that you will look at the information that is out
there.
Mr. Davis asked panelists about additional research on hunger
assistance programs for children. To address this question, Ms.
Cunnyngham developed an annotated bibliography of our research on
various nutrition programs.
Nutrition Programs for Children
Hulsey, Lara, Anne Gordon, Joshua Leftin, Claire Smither-Wulsin, Allen
Schirm, Nicholas Beyler, Anna Comerford, Jessica Galin, Brian
Estes, and Carole Trippe. ``Evaluation of Demonstrations of
National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program Direct
Certification of Children Receiving Medicaid Benefits: Year 1
Report.'' Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). Princeton, NJ:
Mathematica Policy Research, January 2015.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 directed FNS to conduct a
demonstration that directly certifies students for free school meals
through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) based on income
eligibility identified through Medicaid data. This report presents
findings on the impact of this direct certification on NSLP
participation and costs in the 2012-2013 school year. The report also
includes projected nationwide impacts and identifies challenges faced
by states and districts in implementing the demonstration.
Collins, Ann M., Ronette Briefel, Jacob Alex Klerman, Anne Wolf,
Gretchen Rowe, Ayesha Enver, Christopher Logan, Syeda Fatima,
Marina Komarovsky, Julia Lyskawa, and Stephen Bell. ``Summer
Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children Demonstration: Evaluation
Findings for the Third Implementation Year.'' Final report
submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS. Cambridge,
MA: Abt Associates, November 2014.
Collins, Ann M., Ronette Briefel, Jacob Alex Klerman, Gretchen Rowe,
Anne Wolf, Christopher W. Logan, Anne Gordon, Carrie Wolfson,
Ayesha Enver, Cheryl Owens, Charlotte Cabili, and Stephen Bell.
``Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC)
Demonstration: Evaluation Findings for the Full Implementation
Year.'' Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, FNS. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, July 2013.
The Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC)
demonstration sought innovative strategies for reducing hunger during
summer, when children in low-income families do not have access to
school meals. Through a rigorous evaluation, SEBTC tested the impact of
a monthly benefit during the summer on children's food security. States
delivered this benefit via their EBT system for SNAP or the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
An evaluation of the second implementation year showed that a monthly
benefit of $60 per eligible child reduced very-low food security among
children by \1/3\. Children in households with SEBTC ate more fruits
and vegetables, whole grains, and dairy foods, while consuming less
sugar-sweetened beverages, compared to similar children with no SEBTC
benefit. The SEBTC-WIC model yielded better nutrition impacts than did
the SEBTC-SNAP model. The evaluation of the third implementation year
focused on whether a $30 benefit could produce similar results as the
$60 benefit. The $30 benefit did reduce very-low food security among
children as well as the $60 benefit, but the $60 benefit produced
greater reductions in food insecurity among adults and the full
household. In addition, nutrition outcomes for the $30 benefit were
half as great as the $60 benefit.
Moore, Quinn, Kevin Conway, Brandon Kyler, and Andrew Gothro. ``Direct
Certification in the National School Lunch Program: State
Implementation Progress, School Year 2012-2013.'' Report to
Congress. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS,
Office of Policy Support, November 2013.
This report responds to the legislative requirement of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to assess the effectiveness of
state and local efforts to directly certify children for free school
meals under the NSLP. Direct certification is a process conducted by
the states and by local educational agencies to certify certain
children for free school meals without the need for household
applications.
SNAP Eligibility and Participation Among Elderly Individuals
Sama-Miller, E., L. Makowsky, G. Rowe, L. Clary, E. Brown, L. Castner,
and M. Satake. ``Effectiveness of Pilot Projects to Increase
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Participation
Among Medicare's Extra Help Population: Final Report.'' Final
report submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Office
of Research and Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy
Research, December 2014.
In 2010, FNS funded pilot projects in three states (New Mexico,
Pennsylvania, and Washington) to expand access to SNAP for people in
Medicare's Extra Help program. The states used Medicare data to
identify potentially eligible people who were not enrolled in SNAP and
then helped those clients access SNAP by (1) assisting them with SNAP
applications and/or (2) simplifying enrollment procedures. The pilots
focused mainly on reaching elderly clients, but some also served people
with disabilities. This report discusses program implementation and
lessons learned, the effects of the pilots on SNAP applications and
approvals among the target population, and the costs.
Kauff, Jacqueline, Lisa Dragoset, Elizabeth Clary, Elizabeth Laird,
Libby Makowsky, and Emily Sama-Miller. ``Reaching the Underserved
Elderly and Working Poor in SNAP: Evaluation Findings from the
Fiscal Year 2009 Pilots.'' Final report submitted to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, FNS. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica
Policy Research, April 2014.
In the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Congress directed FNS to
test various models for facilitating access to SNAP among elderly or
working poor individuals. FNS awarded competitive grants to six states
to support demonstration activities for up to 3 years, beginning in
September 2009. Three states (Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania)
targeted elderly individuals, and three others (Massachusetts,
Washington, and Wisconsin) targeted working poor individuals. This
report describes the design, implementation, and operation of each
demonstration; assesses the effects on SNAP applications and
participation rates; and estimates demonstration costs.
Leftin, Joshua. ``Characteristics of Eligible Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program Households with Elderly Individuals.'' Final
report submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS.
Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, October 2011.
This report identifies distinguishing characteristics of eligible
elderly individuals who participate in SNAP versus those who are
eligible but do not participate.
Cunnyngham, Karen. ``State Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Eligibility and Participation Among Elderly Individuals.''
Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy
Research, September 2010.
This report provides detailed information on the characteristics of
elderly SNAP eligibles and participants. It also describes the rates of
SNAP eligibility and participation among elderly people across states
and over time. An updated report is expected to be completed in 2015.
Characteristics of SNAP Participants
Farson Gray, Kelsey. ``Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2013.'' Report submitted
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS. Washington, D.C.:
Mathematica Policy Research, December 2014.
This report describes the demographic characteristics and economic
circumstances of SNAP households in Fiscal Year 2013 based on SNAP
Quality Control (QC) data. It also includes detailed information about
the program, including SNAP eligibility rules. The report is part of a
series of annual reports on the characteristics of SNAP households.
SNAP Participation Rates
Eslami, Esa. ``Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2012.'' Final
report submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS.
Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, July 2014.
This report presents estimated national SNAP participation rates
for the total eligible population and for selected economic and
demographic subgroups for Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012. Participation
rates were calculated using SNAP QC data to measure participants and a
microsimulation model based on data from the Current Population Survey
(CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to estimate the
eligible population. The report is part of a series of annual reports
on national SNAP participation rates.
Cunnyngham, Karen. ``Reaching Those in Need: Estimates of State
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates in
2012.'' Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, FNS. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research,
February 2015.
This research brief provides state SNAP participation rates for all
eligible people and for working poor individuals. The participation
rates were derived using shrinkage estimation methods developed to
improve precision. The shrinkage estimator averaged direct sample
estimates of SNAP participation rates with predictions from a
regression model. These estimates are consistent with those in Eslami
(2014). The report is part of a series of annual reports on state SNAP
participation rates.
Cunnyngham, Karen, Amang Sukasih, and Laura Castner. ``Empirical Bayes
Shrinkage Estimates of State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Participation Rates in Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2012
for All Eligible People and the Working Poor.'' Final report
submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS. Washington,
D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, February 2015.
This technical report shows how the state SNAP participation rates
for all eligible people and for working poor individuals presented in
Cunnyngham (2015) were derived. It includes broadly accessible
explanations in the main text, with a detailed technical appendix. The
report contains final participation rate estimates, 90 percent
confidence intervals, and data from intermediate steps such as direct
estimates of state SNAP participation rates, values for the predictors
used in the regression equation, and preliminary shrinkage estimates.
Simulated Changes to SNAP
Leftin, Joshua, Allison Dodd, Kai Filion, Rebecca Wang, Andrew Gothro,
and Karen Cunnyngham. ``Analysis of Proposed Changes to SNAP
Eligibility and Benefit Determination in the 2013 Farm Bill and
Comparison of Cardiometabolic Health Status for SNAP Participants
and Low-Income Nonparticipants.'' Washington, D.C.: Mathematica
Policy Research, August 2013.
Two of the changes to SNAP proposed in the 2014 U.S. Farm Bills
were (1) eliminating the standard utility allowance for those receiving
a nominal benefit from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
and (2) eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility for SNAP. This
report provides an assessment of the effects of the proposed changes on
SNAP eligibles and participants based on results from two
microsimulation models. Separately, the report also discusses the
health profile of SNAP participants based on data from the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Leftin, Joshua, and Karen Cunnyngham. ``The Effects of Proposed Changes
to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program on Eligibility,
Participation, and Benefits.'' Issue brief. Washington, DC:
Mathematica Policy Research, November 2013.
This issue brief updates and summarizes some of the estimates
presented in Leftin, et al. (2013).
Insert 2
Mrs. Hartzler. What is the percentage of elderly households
that are on SNAP? The general population.
Dr. Mills. I think I would defer to----
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay.
Dr. Mills.--others on that.
Mrs. Hartzler. Right.
Ms. Cunnyngham. I could give you the percentage of elderly
people who are eligible. I will need to get back to you with
that.
Ms. Hartzler requested the percentage of elderly populations that
participates in SNAP by state. In response to the question, Ms.
Cunnyngham developed the table below.
SNAP Eligible and Participating Elderly Individuals, Fiscal Year 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elderly Eligible Individuals Elderly Participants
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Population Participation
Number -------------------------- Number Rate (Percent of
(000s) Total Elderly (000s) Eligible)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 171 4 18 45 26
Alaska 15 2 17 4 27
Arizona 187 3 15 51 27
Arkansas 111 4 19 27 25
California 514 1 8 59 11
Colorado 96 2 12 29 30
Connecticut 95 3 13 34 36
Delaware 24 3 13 5 22
District of Columbia 22 4 23 7 32
Florida 676 4 15 302 45
Georgia 304 3 20 94 31
Hawaii 41 3 15 15 37
Idaho 33 2 12 10 30
Illinois 337 3 15 112 33
Indiana 165 3 14 47 29
Iowa 60 2 10 17 29
Kansas 63 2 12 17 27
Kentucky 151 3 18 63 42
Louisiana 172 4 21 58 34
Maine 42 3 14 21 51
Maryland 150 3 14 35 23
Massachusetts 200 3 16 98 49
Michigan 265 3 14 96 36
Minnesota 93 2 10 29 32
Mississippi 130 4 24 39 30
Missouri 177 3 15 61 35
Montana 24 2 11 7 27
Nebraska 34 2 10 9 25
Nevada 67 2 14 19 28
New Hampshire 23 2 9 7 29
New Jersey 233 3 14 69 30
New Mexico 76 4 19 21 27
New York 712 4 19 412 58
North Carolina 301 3 17 92 31
North Dakota 15 2 11 5 36
Ohio 323 3 14 101 31
Oklahoma 120 3 17 37 31
Oregon 109 3 14 52 48
Pennsylvania 373 3 14 139 37
Rhode Island 33 3 15 14 42
South Carolina 175 4 19 54 31
South Dakota 22 3 13 6 29
Tennessee 223 4 18 93 41
Texas 773 3 20 271 35
Utah 33 1 9 8 24
Vermont 18 3 14 9 52
Virginia 204 3 14 62 30
Washington 160 2 13 63 39
West Virginia 66 4 16 26 40
Wisconsin 118 2 11 33 28
Wyoming 10 2 10 2 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: SNAP QC, CPS ASEC, ACS, and administrative data and U.S. Census Bureau population estimates.
Insert 3
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Congratulations. Since
we came in together, I am impressed with you. And I look
forward to listening to you because I know the concern in this
Committee is, like we talked about yesterday, there is a
certain percentage of people on the nutritional programs that
we have seen are working the system, some are taking advantage
of it, and we need to reform it for those people that truly
need it. I mean that is, I think what everybody on here is for.
We want the best program we can so that people get the best
nutrition they can while they need that.
And, Ms. Cunnyngham, I was reading my notes, and I need some
help with the math here, since you are from the mathematics
part of this. In 2013, I have 44 percent of the people who were
less than 18 that were on SNAP, 18 years of age, nine percent
were over 60 years of age, and ten percent were disabled. What
accounts for the other 37 percent because that wasn't
mentioned? Who are those?
Ms. Cunnyngham. Sorry. The numbers that I gave in my
testimony were for households with children, elderly people, or
people with disabilities. If I could just talk about
participants here, the percentage of participants who are
children is now 44 percent. The percentage that are elderly,
that is nine percent. And the percentage that are nonelderly
adults, that is 18 to 59, is 46 percent. The percentage that
are disabled, that includes children and nonelderly adults, is
20 percent. So----
Mr. Yoho. Does that add up to 100? I didn't write those down.
I am sorry.
Ms. Cunnyngham. Well, the percentage that is an overlap
between children and nonelderly, but----
Mr. Yoho. All right. Is there a place that I can get the
breakout of that so I can see 100 percent who is on this?
Ms. Cunnyngham. Absolutely.
Mr. Yoho asked questions about the basic demographics of SNAP
participants. In response to this question, two informative tables are
provided below:
Table 1. Demographics of SNAP participants, Fiscal Year 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participants
--------------------------------------
Number Percent of Percent of
(000s) Total Panel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 47,098 100.0 100.0
Children 20,889 44.4 44.4
Nonelderly adults 21,845 46.4 46.4
Elderly individuals 4,365 9.3 9.3
Nonelderly individuals by
disability status: a
Individuals age 0 to 59 42,734 90.7 100.0
With a disability 5,633 12.0 13.2
Children 1,105 2.3 2.6
Adults 4,528 9.6 10.6
Without a disability 37,101 78.8 86.8
Nondisabled adults age 18 to 49 4,943 10.5 100.0
living in childless households
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Fiscal Year 2013 SNAP QC data file.
a Because of data limitations, presence of a disability can be estimated
only for nonelderly individuals.
Table 2. Characteristics of participating SNAP households, Fiscal Year 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Households with Type of Participants in Benefits to Households
Participant Households with Type of with Type of Participant
-------------------------- Participant -------------------------
--------------------------
Number Percent Number Dollars Percent
(000s) (000s) Percent ($000s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 22,802 100.0 47,098 100.0 6,185,227 100.0
Age:
Children 10,224 44.8 32,863 69.8 4,195,432 67.8
Nonelderly adults 19,266 84.5 43,195 91.7 5,764,778 93.2
Elderly individuals 3,972 17.4 5,048 10.7 531,042 8.6
Disability: aa
Nonelderly individuals with a 4,624 20.3 8,698 18.5 942,604 15.2
disability
No disabled nonelderly 18,178 79.7 38,400 81.5 5,242,623 84.8
individuals
Childless Households 12,578 55.2 14,235 30.2 1,989,795 32.2
Nondisabled adults age 18 to 49 4,538 19.9 5,424 11.5 917,265 14.8
No elderly or disabled 5,653 24.8 6,221 13.2 1,103,123 17.8
individuals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Fiscal Year 2013 SNAP QC data file.
a Because of data limitations, presence of a disability can be estimated only for nonelderly individuals.
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: THE WORLD OF NUTRITION AND THE
ROLE OF THE CHARITABLE
SECTOR)
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael
Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Conaway, Neugebauer,
Benishek, LaMalfa, Yoho, Walorski, Allen, Emmer, Newhouse,
Peterson, David Scott of Georgia, Costa, McGovern, Lujan
Grisham, Bustos, Aguilar, and Ashford.
Staff present: Anne DeCesaro, Haley Graves, Jessica Carter,
Mary Nowak, Mollie Wilken, Scott Graves, Ted Monoson, and
Nicole Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
The Chairman. Well, good morning, and I call the hearing to
order. Please join me in a prayer.
Dear Heavenly Father, we ask for guidance this morning, for
wisdom, as we consider programs that affect folks who are in
need of assistance. We ask for the wisdom and understanding of
those needs and have patience with each other as we consider
our respective positions with this, but most of all, wisdom and
discernment to know what is the right answer. Bless this
hearing now and us to Your service. We ask these things in
Jesus' name. Amen.
The hearing today of the Committee on Agriculture regarding
the past, present, and future of SNAP: focusing on the world of
nutrition and the role of the charitable sector, will come to
order.
I want to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing and
thank them for taking the time to travel here to share their
perspectives and answers to our questions on how the charitable
sector plays a vital role in providing food assistance to
families in need. Today is about hearing from the folks on the
ground, practitioners in the field. They will provide us with
their first-person accounts of what is working and is not
working as we continue to explore the past, present, and future
of SNAP.
We proceed today without any preconceived notions and with
a commitment to strengthening the program so it can serve as a
tool to help individuals and families move up the economic
ladder.
Today, we will also begin a new phase of the review, which
is to explore the world of nutrition that surrounds SNAP,
formally known as the Supplemental--and I want to emphasize the
word Supplemental--Nutrition Assistance Program. Addressing the
nutritional needs of Americans is not solely the responsibility
of SNAP. The program does not operate in a vacuum. Instead,
there is a web of government programs, charitable
organizations, and others working toward a common goal. From
churches to community organizations to corporate philanthropy,
local food banks, these not-for-profits and others are deeply
rooted in their communities and serve as important partners in
the delivery of critical food assistance across the country.
Understanding SNAP's interaction with these organizations
will help to maximize the effectiveness of all organizations
involved, government and non-government, and better target
limited resources by identifying both unmet needs and areas of
overlap.
Contrary to the picture painted by many, SNAP benefits are
designed to be supplemental, leaving household responsible for
the remaining needs. Many do so with the help of local
organizations, such as the West Texas Food Bank, which annually
serves more than 75,000 individuals with 3.6 million meals
through their various partner organizations.
Individuals and organizations that highlight the SNAP
benefit level in a manner that misrepresents the idea that it
is supplemental is both confusing and disingenuous. While the
issue of hunger deserves our thoughtful consideration,
misleading the general public to draw attention to it should be
considered unacceptable.
A successful solution for nutrition assistance is the
responsibility of government and the charitable sector, a
combination of the two working together. Charitable
organizations have greater flexibility to address the needs of
their specific communities in ways that the Federal Government
is often not able to do by being accountable to the family in
need and not to the government program.
Charitable organizations have strong community ties and
often operate programs on the government's behalf. For many of
these organizations, food assistance is only part of their
mission and is seen as a means and not just an end.
We all want to address hunger in America. To do that, we
must focus on serving individuals and families in need and less
on who or what is providing the assistance. The organizations
we will hear from today are doing just that, and there is a
great deal to learn.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as we
explore how charitable organizations augment the Federal
nutrition programs in the delivery of critical food assistance
across the county.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
Congress from Texas
I want to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing and thank them
for taking the time to travel here to share their perspectives and
answer our questions on how the charitable sector plays a vital role in
providing food assistance to families in need. Today is about hearing
from the folks on the ground, practitioners in the field. They will
provide us with their first person accounts of what is working and is
not working as we continue to explore the Past, Present, and Future of
SNAP.
We proceed today without preconceived notions and with a commitment
to strengthening the program so it can serve as a tool to help
individuals and families move up the economic ladder.
Today, we also begin a new phase of the review, which is to explore
the world of nutrition that surrounds SNAP, formally known as the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Addressing the nutritional
needs of Americans is not the sole responsibility of SNAP. The program
does not operate in a vacuum. Instead, there is a web of government
programs and charitable organizations working toward a common goal.
From churches to community organizations to corporate philanthropy and
local food banks, these nonprofits are deeply rooted in their
communities and serve as important partners in the delivery of critical
food assistance across the country. Understanding SNAP's interaction
with these organizations will help to maximize the effectiveness of all
organizations involved, government and non-government, and better
target limited resources by identifying both unmet needs and areas of
overlap.
Contrary to the picture painted by many, SNAP benefits are designed
to be supplemental, leaving the household responsible for the remaining
needs. Many do so with the help of local organizations, such as the
West Texas Food Bank, which annually serves more than 75,000
individuals more than 3.6 million meals through their various partner
organizations. Individuals and organizations that highlight the SNAP
benefit level in a manner that misrepresents the idea that it is
supplemental is both confusing and disingenuous. While the issue of
hunger deserves our thoughtful consideration, misleading the general
public to draw attention to it is unacceptable.
A successful solution for nutrition assistance is the
responsibility of government and the charitable sector, a combination
of the two working together. Charitable organizations have greater
flexibility to address the needs of their communities in ways the
Federal Government is often not able to do by being accountable to the
family in need and not the government program. Charitable organizations
have strong community ties and often operate programs on the
government's behalf. For many of these organizations, food assistance
is only part of their mission and is seen as a means, not just an end.
We all want to address hunger in America. To do that, we must focus
on serving individuals and families in need, and less on who or what is
providing the assistance. The organizations we will hear from today are
doing just that, and there is a great deal to learn.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as we explore
how charitable organizations augment Federal nutrition programs in
delivering critical food assistance across the county.
The Chairman. With that I will now ask the Ranking Member
if he has a statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing today.
As I have said, I think it is beneficial for the Committee
to learn as much as we can about SNAP while resisting attempts
to open up the farm bill or separate SNAP from the farm bill. I
am very supportive of the work done by local food banks and
other charitable organizations across the country. They not
only offer food but important outreach services to help those
in need. However, they do not have the funding capacity or
flexibility to fully replace SNAP as some might suggest.
Hopefully today's hearing will help the Committee get a
better understanding of how charities and nonprofits work with
programs like SNAP, and I am looking forward to any suggestions
our witnesses might have about improvements we could make to
ensure those programs are operating as efficiently as possible.
What I would be interested in exploring is making more
produce available at food banks. Farmers seem to have a
disincentive to donate surplus food due to high packing and
transportation costs, agencies have a tough time getting time-
sensitive perishable products out before they go bad. Growing
the partnership between food banks and farmers could help this.
I hope this will be a productive hearing, and we can
continue looking past the rhetoric and learning more about this
important program. And I thank the chair for the hearing and
the witnesses for appearing. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The chair would
request that other Members submit their opening statements for
the record so the witnesses may begin their testimony and to
ensure there is ample time for questions.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Goodlatte, Mrs. Bustos, and
Ms. Adams follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress
from Virginia
I appreciate the opportunity for the House Committee on Agriculture
to review the critical role that charitable organizations play in the
delivery of food assistance across the country. From local food banks,
to churches to other nonprofits, these institutions are deeply rooted
in our communities and serve as important partners in addressing hunger
in our nation.
As you know, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
is designed primarily to increase the food purchasing power of eligible
low-income households to help them buy a nutritionally adequate low-
cost diet. The 2014 Farm Bill made the first reforms to SNAP since the
welfare reforms of 1996, taking steps to lift recipients out of poverty
and maintaining critical food assistance to families in need.
As we work to ensure the integrity of the program and accomplish
its purpose to help meet the nutritional necessities of those most
vulnerable, Congress must focus on how to deliver benefits as
effectively and efficiently as possible. Direct spending projections
authorized by the Nutrition Title represent approximately 79% of the
2014 Farm Bill's funding, and as such it is vital that we take a
collaborative approach in leveraging Federal resources. The successful
solution for nutrition assistance is not just the government and not
just the charitable sector, but instead a combination of the two.
Recognizing the impact of increasing food security needs hitting
hard-working people all across America, charitable organizations often
have greater outreach on the ground to address the needs of its
communities. As such, I am proud to work with organizations like
Feeding America Southwest Virginia (FASWVA) whose mission is to feed
the region's under-served through a network of private-public partners
in my Congressional district. As the leader in hunger relief, FASWVA
distributes more than 20 million pounds of food annually to nearly 400
partner agency soup kitchens, rescue missions and food pantries.
Through their strong partnerships, Feeding America Southwest Virginia
has served the 26 counties and associated municipalities that make up
the region for over 3 decades.
This network of partner agencies helps ensure that we continue to
move food to fight hunger and change lives in Southwest Virginia
through critical charitable efforts, including: Food Pantries, a food
distribution program that provides groceries on a regular schedule to
people in need of emergency food; Harvest Home Kitchen, an agency that
serves emergency meals to clients on site and on regularly scheduled
days and hours; and Mobile Food Pantries, a distribution program that
targets areas that are under-served or difficult to reach.
As we implement the 2014 Farm Bill nutrition programs, I was glad
to partner with my colleague Representative Marcia L. Fudge to send a
strong message to the Secretary of Agriculture to distribute existing
resources within the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) so
commodities can reach our food bank distribution systems to meet local
nutritional needs. I also joined bipartisan efforts to support program
levels within the 2014 Farm Bill for TEFAP, as well as storage and
distribution to assist local food banks and emergency feeding.
I thank the Chairman for his attention to this vital issue. As we
learn the critical role our local charitable sectors play in
partnership to most effectively address hunger in our nation, it may
help guide future policy decisions on the most effective use of
resources to lift Americans out of poverty while sustaining valuable
Federal resources.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cheri Bustos, a Representative in Congress
from Illinois
Thank you to the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding today's
hearing as we continue the Committee's review of the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and to provide us insight into the
supportive role that charitable organizations play in our communities.
Because no one wants to see children go to bed hungry at night, I
have fought hard against cuts to nutrition programs that help put food
on the table for families. SNAP is one of the strongest tools our
country has in combating hunger and poverty, especially for children.
Additionally, I am very supportive of the work done by local food
banks and other charitable organizations across my region, state, and
our country. In fact, I have made it a point to visit many across my
district to learn more about the important work they perform and the
individuals they serve. Many of these organizations offer food as well
as important outreach services to some of the most vulnerable in our
communities. Food banks and charitable organizations are wonderful
services, but they cannot be expected to replace SNAP.
SNAP is a critical nutrition support for so many families in times
of need; serving 63,832 households in Illinois alone, and it must be
protected. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and
learning more about how we are able to support the collaboration
between charitable organizations and SNAP without diminishing either.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for convening this hearing on the role of
charitable organizations in fighting hunger in our communities.
I would like to submit the following statement for the record on
behalf of Second Harvest Food Bank of Northwest North Carolina.* Their
comments echo a recent Food Research Action Center report, which finds
that the Greensboro-High Point area is the most food insecure
metropolitan area in the nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the document referred to is located on p. 222.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I joined the House Agriculture Committee and the Subcommittee on
Nutrition in order to advocate for the hungry in the 12th district and
throughout North Carolina. In March, I joined my colleagues in asking
the House Appropriations Committee to provide full funding for The
Emergency Food Assistance Program. This program provides food and
funding to help states and local food banks provide services to
supplement the diets of low-income Americans, including the elderly, at
no cost.
The House Republican Budget proposes converting SNAP to a block
grant program. This is strongly opposed by our nation's food banks
because it will result in fewer families receiving help when they are
hungry.
The Chairman. I would like to welcome our witnesses to the
table today. First off we have Kate Maehr, the CEO of Greater
Chicago Food Depository from Chicago, Illinois; Ms. Keleigh
Green-Patton, Chicago's Community Kitchens from Chicago,
Illinois; Mr. Dustin Kunz, Salesforce Administrator and
Research Project Manager for the Texas Hunger Initiative in
Waco, Texas; Ms. Lynda Taylor Ender, AGE Director, The Senior
Source, Dallas, Texas; and Mr. Jonathan Webb, Director of
Foundations and Community Outreach with the Feed the Children
Foundation, Edmond, Oklahoma.
Ms. Maehr, the microphone is yours, and please begin your
testimony when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF KATE MAEHR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, GREATER CHICAGO FOOD
DEPOSITORY, CHICAGO, IL
Ms. Maehr. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee. My name is Kate Maehr, and I am the Executive
Director and CEO of the Greater Chicago Food Depository. I am
honored to be here representing food banks and agencies that
respond daily to hunger across our nation. Thank you so much
for this opportunity.
The Food Depository is one of 200 food banks in Feeding
America's national network. Together, we serve more than 46
million people through 58,000 food pantries, soup kitchens,
shelters, and programs.
Every day, food banks source and distribute millions of
pounds of food. Last year, our collective output neared 4
billion pounds. We do this with the generosity of supporters
from all sectors, including leading food companies, retailers,
farmers, corporate funders and generous individuals. USDA
commodities from TEFAP and CSFP are also a critical source of
food for our network, and we thank you for the TEFAP increase
in the 2014 Farm Bill.
In addition, we have special programs to reach food
insecure children, seniors, and veterans. We engage in SNAP
outreach to help connect eligible people, and because we know
that a job is often the best solution to food insecurity, many
of us, including the Food Depository, have workforce
development programs.
Still, millions of low-income households with working
adults, and those who are unable to work, struggle to put food
on their table. That is why we advocate for strong Federal
nutrition programs. Our goal is to end hunger in our
communities. Achieving that goal requires a coordinated public-
private response. We are proud of our daily impact, but frankly
it pales in comparison to the job done by programs such as
SNAP, WIC, CACFP, School Lunch and Breakfast, and Summer Meals.
When the Great Recession hit, the demand for food
assistance increased dramatically. In Cook County, Illinois, we
experienced a 70 percent rise in food pantry visits over 5
years. Each week, community food pantries and church basement
soup kitchens saw new faces walk through their doors. And while
the need has plateaued in many communities, it has not receded.
Food banks are incredibly proud of how we have risen to meet
this need. We are proud of the donors and volunteers who embody
the American value of service and who have kept millions of
people from going hungry. But charity did not do this alone.
During this era of increased need, Federal nutrition
programs, especially SNAP, did exactly what they were created
to do. When our country experienced its most drastic economic
crisis since the Great Depression, SNAP grew to meet the need.
But as SNAP expanded, so have misconceptions about the program.
In 2013, 43 percent of SNAP recipients lived in a household
with an employed adult. At the same time, 82 percent of SNAP
benefits went to households that include children, seniors, or
people with disabilities.
Every day, the SNAP program and food banks work in tandem.
Among households that we serve, 55 percent receive SNAP, but
with an average of less than $5 per person per day, benefits
often run out before the month's end. For these families and
for those who do not meet SNAP eligibility guidelines, food
banks are there. If SNAP funding were cut further or if
unnecessary restrictions were placed on the programs, food
banks would not be able to fill the void.
Together we have the ability to end hunger in America.
Every day, food banks like the Food Depository strive to do
more. We strive to offer more job training, expand programs for
veterans, provide fresh produce to food deserts, and ensure
that every child is fed during the summer. But we can only do
this because the Federal nutrition programs are in place and
our role is supplementary.
We understand and appreciate the difficult task that our
elected officials have to balance the budget, but the budget
should not be balanced on the backs of our most vulnerable
neighbors. On behalf of the Greater Chicago Food Depository,
Feeding America, our partner agencies and the people we serve,
thank you for your time and attention. I urge you, protect SNAP
and other critical nutrition programs in ongoing budget
negotiations. And I invite and encourage you to visit your
local food bank and see firsthand the amazing work that they
do. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Maehr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kate Maehr, Executive Director and Chief
Executive Officer, Greater Chicago Food Depository, Chicago, IL
April 15, 2015
Kate Maehr, Executive Director and CEO,
Greater Chicago Food Depository.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
My name is Kate Maehr and I am the Executive Director and CEO of
the Greater Chicago Food Depository. I am honored to represent food
banks and agencies that respond daily to hunger across our nation.
Thank you for this opportunity.
The Food Depository is one of 200 food banks in Feeding America's
network that covers every county in the United States. Together, we
serve more than 46.5 million people in need through 58,000 food
pantries, soup kitchens, shelters and other programs.
Feeding America and the Food Depository have been in operation
since 1979 and the food banking model in the United States has existed
for nearly 50 years. Food banks were originally intended to be hubs
where donated food could be collected and distributed to community
hunger-relief programs. We were meant to be an emergency response and a
supplement for Americans who struggled to access food. Over the
decades, we have grown into something much greater.
Every day, nonprofit food banks like the Greater Chicago Food
Depository source and distribute millions of pounds of food. Last year,
the collective output of all food banks neared 4 billion pounds. This
has nearly doubled since 2009 when we distributed 2 billion pounds of
food. We can do this with the generosity of food donors and financial
supporters from all sectors, including our nation's largest food
companies, retailers, farmers, corporate funders and millions of
generous individuals. USDA commodities from TEFAP and CSFP are also a
critical source of food for our network and we thank you for the TEFAP
increase in the 2014 Farm Bill.
Greater Chicago Food Depository Food Sources and Distribution Fiscal
Year 2014
Food Sources Total Distribution By Food Type
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Beyond distributing food through our networks of local agencies,
food banks have developed special programs to reach food insecure
children, seniors and veterans. We engage in SNAP outreach to help
connect eligible households. And, because we know that a good job is
often the best solution to food insecurity, many of us have workforce
development programs.
At the Greater Chicago Food Depository, we have Chicago's Community
Kitchens. This program offers free 14 week job training to unemployed
adults who are passionate about starting a new career in food service.
Since this program was founded in 1998, more than 1,200 men and women
have graduated and gone on to successful careers.
Still, for millions of low-income households with working adults,
and those who are unable to work--every day is a struggle to put food
on the table. In 2014, Feeding America released its quadrennial Hunger
in America study, which captures detailed information about who is in
need of emergency food assistance throughout our communities. The
report for the Food Depository's service area found that one in six of
our neighbors receives food from our network. Of the households we
serve, 36 percent include at least one child, 39 percent include a
senior and 18 percent include someone who has served in the United
States Armed Forces.
Hunger in America also shed more light on the health consequences
of food insecurity and the difficult choices our clients make every
day. Sixty-two percent of clients have chosen between paying for food
and paying for medical bills, 73 percent have chosen between paying for
food or paying for home utilities, 59 percent have chosen between
paying for food or paying their rent or mortgage. Sixty percent of
client households include someone with high blood pressure and 35
percent include someone with diabetes. The results of Hunger in America
are a sobering reminder that an incredible need persists across our
community.
This is why food banks advocate for the future of strong nutrition
programs and this is why we are here today. While we strive to be
greater, our goal is not to be larger. Our goal is to end hunger in our
communities. And we know that achieving that goal requires a strong and
coordinated response from private charity and public programs. We are
proud of our daily impact on hunger, but it pales in comparison to the
tremendous job done by Federal nutrition programs including SNAP, WIC,
CACFP, School Lunch and Breakfast and Summer Meals. This is why we
strive to connect people in need with these critical programs.
When the Great Recession hit, the demand for food assistance
increased dramatically. In Cook County, Illinois, our network
experienced a 70 percent increase in food pantry visits over 5 years.
Each week, volunteers in community food pantries, church basement soup
kitchens and meal programs saw more and more families walk through
their doors for the first time, many of them saying, ``I never thought
I would be here.''
While the record need has leveled off in many communities, it has
not receded. Food banks are incredibly proud that we have risen to meet
this need. We are proud of the thousands of generous donors and
selfless volunteers who embody the American value of service. We are
proud of the men and women who operate our partner agencies--most of
whom are also volunteers. Together, we have responded to a record
demand for food assistance. Together, we have kept millions of our
neighbors from going hungry. But charity didn't do this alone. We will
never be able to do this alone.
During this era of increased need, Federal nutrition programs--
especially SNAP--did exactly what they were created to do. SNAP is the
front-line defense against hunger in the United States. When our
country experienced its most drastic economic crisis since the Great
Depression, SNAP grew to meet the need. SNAP continues to protect
millions of children, seniors, veterans, people with disabilities and
working families from hunger. But as SNAP expanded over the last
decade, so have misconceptions about the program.
In 2013, 43 percent of SNAP recipients lived in a household with a
working adult. At the same time, 82 percent of SNAP benefits went to
households that include children, seniors or people with disabilities.
Approximately eight percent of military veterans receive SNAP benefits.
The average monthly SNAP benefit for an individual last year was
$125.37. That comes out to a little more than $31 per week or $1.40 per
meal. Every September, during Hunger Action Month, we encourage food
bank supporters, partners and elected officials to take the SNAP
Challenge and eat for 1 week on a SNAP budget. Many Members of Congress
have taken the challenge. While this experience cannot duplicate the
real life struggle of a food insecure person, it opens your eyes of the
sacrifices, trade-offs and difficult choices made by families on SNAP.
Furthermore, SNAP gives people the opportunity to create a better
future for themselves and their families. As many graduates of
Chicago's Community Kitchens can attest, SNAP gives unemployed people
the ability to provide for their family while they receive job
training.
Every day, the SNAP program and food banks work in tandem to
prevent millions of Americans from going hungry. Among households
served by food bank programs, 55 percent also receive SNAP, but their
benefits often run out before the month ends. And for families
struggling with food insecurity who don't meet SNAP eligibility
guidelines, food banks are there. Together, we have done a fantastic
job during historically challenging times. But the need is still there,
and if SNAP funding was to be cut further, or if unnecessary
restrictions were placed on the program, food banks and pantries could
never cover the difference. To put this in perspective, the eight food
banks that serve Illinois distribute enough food for approximately 100
million meals each year, while SNAP benefits in Illinois can provide
1.3 billion meals per year.
Together we have the ability to end hunger in the United States.
Every day, food banks like the Greater Chicago Food Depository strive
to do more for our communities. We strive to offer more job training
initiatives, expand our programs for veterans, provide fresh produce
for food deserts and ensure that every child is fed during the summer.
But we can only do this because Federal nutrition programs are the
front line defense against hunger and our role is supplementary.
We understand and appreciate the difficult task our elected
officials have to balance the budget. But the budget should not be
balanced on the backs of our most vulnerable neighbors. For many low-
income families, the recession isn't over. Unfortunately, a return to
employment isn't always a return to food security. Both public and
private programs that provide a helping hand in hard times are
critical.
On behalf of the Greater Chicago Food Depository, Feeding America,
our partner agencies and the people we serve, I thank you for your time
and attention. I encourage you to protect SNAP and other critical
nutrition programs in ongoing budget negotiations. And if you haven't,
I encourage you to visit your local food bank to see first-hand the
terrific work they do. Thank you.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Kate Maehr,
Executive Director and CEO,
Greater Chicago Food Depository.
The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Green-Patton?
STATEMENT OF KELEIGH GREEN-PATTON, CHICAGO'S COMMUNITY
KITCHENS, CHICAGO, IL
Ms. Green-Patton. My name is Keleigh Green-Patton and I am
a product of SNAP. Recently, I was promoted to a position that
I believe represents a full-circle moment in my life. As I
think about my humble beginnings I realize how far I have come.
My sister and I grew up in a single-parent home. My mother
worked full time as a secretary. It didn't pay much but she did
the best that she could. She made sure that we were active in
free programs like music classes and gymnastics. My sister and
I didn't know that she could barely keep food in the house.
My mom received Food Stamps, which is the equivalent of
SNAP at the time, the kind that you tear out of the booklet.
She was big on fruits and vegetables, and so we always had that
stuff at home. She always insisted fresh was better, but we
never knew how much she struggled to feed us. We never knew
that it cost more to purchase an apple than to purchase a pack
of noodles. But my mom knew, and so she did the best that she
could with what she had.
When the stamps ran out in the middle of the month, we
visited our local church for food baskets. Now my sister and I
were excited to get whatever was in the boxes. They always had
something special for us. We would carry the items home proudly
as if we had just come from the grocery store.
But as a teenager, I became increasingly embarrassed about
going to the church for food or paying for the groceries with
the paper stamps. If I saw my friends that I knew at the store,
I would wait until they left before I completed my purchase.
And if they didn't leave, I would pretend that I left my money
at home, thus leaving the purchase behind.
Years later, I found myself as a single mother of two. At
different times over 4 years, I needed stamps to feed my
children. I was very diligent about finding work. As a matter
of fact, I ended up with both full-time and a part-time job to
make ends meet, and I was able to stop collecting SNAP
benefits. I really needed my girls to see that hard work pays
off, but I struggled as many others just to keep food on the
table, even with two jobs.
Later, I married and had two more children. We were doing
well, in our two parent, two income family. We still lived
paycheck to paycheck, but there was no need for assistance. We
were happy and proud working Americans. But a little more than
11 years ago, I lost my $12 an hour job when the candy factory
I worked at closed. I searched hard for any job, but I only had
a high school diploma, no college or special training.
That's when I applied for Chicago's Community Kitchens
which is a workforce development program at the Greater Chicago
Food Depository, and my life has never been the same since. The
program gave me culinary skills and the confidence I needed to
start a new career. But while the program had no monetary cost
for me, I was still without income while I trained full time
for 3 months.
To supplement the lack of income, the only thing I could do
was to go back and apply for food stamps. We received about
$400 a month for a family of six. When the stamps ran out, my
local church was kind enough to give us food baskets. It was
just enough to bridge the gap before the end of the month. I
didn't understand it when I was a teenager, but I understand
now how important these benefits were and are to families like
mine. I never wanted to be on Food Stamps, but when I look back
on it today, I am so blessed that it was there when I needed
it.
It is now 10 years later. I am still happily married with
four children. After graduating from Chicago's Community
Kitchens, I gained immediate employment and eventually
purchased my first home within that year. My career continued
to advance when I started working in school food service. As I
settle into my new position of District Manager for the State
of Illinois for Chartwell School Food Service, I am proud to
say not only can I afford to feed my family, but we always have
nutritious food in the house. I can even afford to send my
babies to college. I work for a great company whose philosophy
is eat, learn, live, and I have had the opportunity to pay it
forward in several ways. I have been able to offer internships
and jobs to many of the Chicago's Community Kitchens graduates.
On a monthly basis, where I am the associate pastor at my
church, I started a free hot meal to anyone in the community
that needs it.
I am so blessed and thankful to have the opportunity to
testify before you today. As a child, Food Stamps kept me and
my sister from going hungry. As an adult, Food Stamps allowed
me to feed my children while I invested in my own future. Many
people call SNAP a safety net, but for me it was like a
trampoline, able to bounce my family back into work and a
brighter future.
I am so proud to represent the millions of families across
the United States who have benefited from SNAP. And on behalf
of households who need SNAP now and in the future, I ask you to
protect this important program. Thank you for hearing my story.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Green-Patton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Keleigh Green-Patton, Chicago's Community
Kitchens, Chicago, IL
April 15, 2015
Keleigh Green-Patton.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
My name is Keleigh Green-Patton and I am a product of SNAP.
Recently, I was promoted to a position that I believe represents a
full circle moment in my life. As I think about my humble beginnings I
realize how far I have come.
My sister and I grew up in a single parent home. My mother worked
full-time as an administrative assistant, but it didn't pay much and
she did the best she could to give us a good childhood. She made sure
we were active by participating in free music classes, gymnastics and
ice skating. My sister and I didn't know that, like thousands of other
families, we could barely keep food in the house.
My mom received Food Stamps--the equivalent of SNAP at the time--
the kind you tear out of the booklet. She was big on fruit, vegetables
and beans so we always had that at home. She always insisted fresh was
better. We never knew just how much she struggled to feed us. We never
knew that it cost more to purchase an apple than to purchase noodles.
But my mom knew we needed good food in order to grow and so she did the
best she could with what she had. When the stamps ran out in the middle
of the month, we visited our local church for food baskets. My sister
and I were excited to receive whatever was in the box. We would carry
the items so proudly as if we had just come from the store.
As a teenager, I became increasingly embarrassed about going to the
church for food or paying for groceries with the paper stamps. If I saw
people I knew at the store, I would wait until they left before I
completed my purchase. If they didn't leave, I would pretend that I
left my money at home, leaving the food behind.
Years later, I found myself as a single mother of two. At different
times over 4 years, I needed Food Stamps to help feed my children. I
was diligent about finding work. I worked both a full and part-time job
later and was able to stop collecting SNAP benefits. I really needed my
girls to see that hard work pays off, but I struggled to keep food on
the table, even with two jobs.
Later, I married and had two more children. We were doing well, in
our two parent, two income family. But we didn't make enough to save up
for the future, because we lived paycheck to paycheck. Yet there was no
need for assistance. We were happy and proud working Americans. But a
little more than 11 years ago, I lost my $12 per hour job when the
candy factory I worked at closed. I searched hard for a new job, any
job. I had a high school diploma but no college or advanced training. I
needed skills that would last me a lifetime.
That's when I applied for Chicago's Community Kitchens, a workforce
development program at the Greater Chicago Food Depository. My life has
never been the same. The program gave me the culinary skills and the
confidence I needed for a new career. But while the program had no
monetary cost, I was still without income while I trained for 3 months.
To supplement the lack of income, I knew the only way to feed my
family was to apply for food stamps. We received about $400 a month for
six people. When the stamps ran out, my local church was kind enough to
give us food baskets. It was just enough to help support our family
until we could be in a better position to support ourselves. It was
just enough to bridge the gap before the end of the month. I didn't
understand it when I was a teenager, but I understand now how important
these benefits were and are to families like mine. I never wanted to be
on Food Stamps, when I look back on it today, I'm glad it was there
when we needed it.
It's now exactly 10 years later and I'm still happily married with
children. After graduating from Chicago's Community Kitchens, I gained
employment with a catering company and eventually purchased a home. My
career continued to advance when I started working in school food
service. As I settle into my new position of District Manager for
Chartwells, I'm proud to say not only can I afford to feed my family,
but we always have nutritious food in the house. I also can afford to
send my children to college. I work for a great company whose
philosophy is Eat Learn Live and I've had the opportunity to pay it
forward in several ways. I've been able to offer internships and jobs
to many Chicago's Community Kitchens graduates. On a monthly basis, I
volunteer at my church and we provide a free hot meal to anyone who
needs it in our community.
I'm so thankful to have the opportunity to testify before you
today. As a child, Food Stamps kept me and my sister from going hungry.
As an adult, Food Stamps allowed me to feed my children while I
invested in my own future. Without this program, I wouldn't have been
able to start my new career. Many people call SNAP a safety net, but
for me it was like a trampoline--bouncing my family back into work and
a brighter future.
I am proud to represent the millions of families across the United
States who have benefited from SNAP. On behalf of households who need
SNAP now and in the future, I ask you to protect this important
program. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Keleigh Green-Patton.
The Chairman. Well, Keleigh, thank you for sharing that
with us. You have made my day. Thank you very much.
Ms. Green-Patton. I appreciate that.
The Chairman. Thank you, Keleigh. Mr. Kunz, you may
proceed.
Ms. Green-Patton. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DUSTIN KUNZ, RESEARCH MANAGER; SALESFORCE
ADMINISTRATOR AND DEVELOPER, TEXAS HUNGER INITIATIVE, BAYLOR
UNIVERSITY, WACO, TX
Mr. Kunz. Thank you, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member
Peterson, and Members of the Committee, for the invitation to
share about how statewide public-private partnerships are
assisting low-income Texans in obtaining needed benefits
including SNAP.
My name is Dustin Kunz, and I am a Research Manager for
Baylor University's Texas Hunger Initiative, a collaborative
and capacity-building project engaged in research and community
development to create a food-secure Texas. I served as an
AmeriCorps VISTA and United States Marine. I am an ordained
minister and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Complex problems require complex, creative, and
collaborative solutions. Public challenges, such as food
insecurity, require a response that exceeds the capabilities
and resources of any one department, organization, or
jurisdiction. Collaboration provides a way to stretch those
resources and accomplish more with less, and the benefits of
these partnerships include cost savings and enhanced quality
and quantity of services, while also addressing community
needs, enhancing trust, and increasing citizen support.
In Texas, the Health and Human Services Commission
administers SNAP. To reach the entire state, they would either
need to spend an incredible amount of money to maintain offices
and staff and technology or else sacrifice service to some of
our most vulnerable residents. Instead, a forward-looking Texas
Legislature has engaged the help of nearly 1,200 organizations
to provide application assistance. Partners include faith-based
organizations, childhood intervention programs, libraries,
hospitals, schools and colleges, and domestic violence
shelters. And now approximately 60 percent of SNAP-eligible
Texans can reach out to a partner in their ZIP Code to apply,
re-certify, and when things improve, withdraw from SNAP with
the help of community members, all at an incredibly low cost to
the state and Federal Government.
There are two partnership levels. At self-service sites, a
computer is made available to the public, and the online portal
is readily accessible. For those that need additional support,
we have application assistance sites where citizens can work
with a staff member or volunteer called a navigator who has
actually been trained to assist in the application process.
This reduces errors in applications saving the government time
and money while also promptly providing resources to the Texans
who need them the most, and it utilizes existing charitable
structures to decrease the need for so many physical government
offices.
The Texas Hunger Initiative performs three key roles here,
implementation, translation, and evaluation. THI has helped to
implement this program through our 12 regional offices where we
recruit, train, and support these partners with whom we have
relationships, making it possible for us to interact on a level
unattainable by a government agency. We translate the language
of government programs to the nonprofit world and conversely
translate nonprofit to government agencies. And finally, using
data from the state and the field, Baylor University evaluates
the effectiveness of these public-private partnerships to
develop evidence-informed best practices.
Under the old system, when a Texan needed a hand they would
usually take a shift off of work which cost them about \1/3\ of
the monthly SNAP allotment to spend hours in a government
office for an interview and a paper application that Texas
would later have to pay someone to digitize. Under the
partnership I have described today, a citizen can call a
minister at a local church and express the need for help. They
schedule a time that doesn't interfere with the applicant's
job, and the minister can share the myriad ways the church
helps folks. If the individual chooses to apply for public
benefits, the minister is trained to assist.
In the end, using either system, the individual is going to
receive aid. But unlike the eligibility worker whose primary
concerns are compliance and qualification calculations, the
minister understands public benefits within the greater
continuum of care in that congregation. Independently, the
public and private sectors can do a great deal for economically
vulnerable Americans. But when they are working together, like
we are in Texas, there is a much greater impact. We see
increased efficiency of service. We see enhanced community
capacity to address these and other local issues, and most
importantly, the citizens who most need benefits and services
have access to them. Agencies can efficiently execute programs,
but staff and volunteers working in communities can put those
programs in perspective, seeing them as part of the whole and
as a crucial but intermediate step along the path to self-
sufficiency, moving people from a place of vulnerability to a
place of flourishing.
Thank you. I look forward to any questions you will have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kunz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dustin Kunz, Research Manager; Salesforce
Administrator and Developer, Texas Hunger Initiative, Baylor
University, Waco, TX
On behalf of the Texas Hunger Initiative, Baylor University, and
nonprofits and faith-based groups across Texas, I would like to thank
you, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
Committee, for the invitation to share with you about ways community
organizations partner with government agencies to work towards a food-
secure Texas.
My name is Dustin Kunz, and I am a research manager for the Texas
Hunger Initiative (THI) at Baylor University. Prior to that I have
served as an AmeriCorps VISTA and United States Marine. I hold a Master
of Divinity degree from Baylor University; I am an ordained Baptist
minister and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I share this because
my history demonstrates my purpose and my reason for testifying: in
everything I seek the good of the world around me, whether that be for
our country, my city, or my faith community. It is exactly that kind of
love for the community that inspires every organization I will be
sharing about today.
The Texas Hunger Initiative is a collaborative, capacity-building
project focused on ensuring that every Texan has access to three
nutritious meals a day, 7 days a week. THI develops and implements
strategies to end hunger through research, policy, education, community
organizing, and community development. Headquartered at Baylor
University with 12 regional offices across the state, THI convenes
Federal, state and local government stakeholders with nonprofits, faith
communities and business leaders to create an efficient system of
accountability that increases food security in Texas. At the heart of
THI is the belief that because public challenges (and food insecurity
is a good example) are multi-jurisdictional in nature, ``they require a
response that exceeds the capabilities and resources of any one
department, organization, or jurisdiction, and collaboration, including
multi-jurisdictional partnerships, provides a way to stretch resources,
and accomplish more with less.'' \1\ Public-private partnerships are
collaborations that involve a ``public agency and either a private firm
or nonprofit organization,'' and each plays a role in service delivery.
Benefits of public-private partnerships include ``cost savings [and]
enhanced quantity and quality of services'' in addition to benefits for
the local community, such as ``addressing community needs, enhancing
trust between participating entities, and increasing citizen support.''
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ O'Leary, R., and C. Gerard. 2013. Collaborative governance and
leadership: A 2012 survey of local government collaboration. The
Municipal Yearbook 2013. Washington, D.C.: ICMA, 57.
\2\ Ibid, 251.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coverage
In Texas, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC)
administers SNAP and other important programs, including the Children's
Health Insurance Program and hospice services. HHSC maintains several
offices and local staff, but Texas is big--really big. We have 254
counties, cover a span of almost 269,000 miles2, and have
more than 27 million residents.\3\ To reach the entire state, the HHSC
would ordinarily need to either expend an incredible amount of money to
maintain physical offices, government personnel, and secure technology
to cover an area more than 3,935 times the size of D.C., or else
sacrifice access to some of our most vulnerable residents. But I said
``ordinarily.'' Instead, Texas joined the ranks of a few other forward-
looking states and engaged the help of nonprofit organizations across
Texas who already exist, relate, and thrive in communities that
programs like SNAP seek to help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Texas Department of State Health Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access
Right now, over 1,100 community based organizations in Texas
partner with the state to provide application assistance for SNAP and
other public benefits programs. These organizations have the option to
provide assistance to their existing clientele or the public at large.
This means that, without divulging sensitive information to the general
public, shelters can provide application assistance to victims of
domestic violence, and at the same time a local church, synagogue, or
mosque can help anyone in need. Organizations can be found via the
government website, a phone call to a free health and human services
information and referral system (in Texas, 2-1-1), or via other
community organizations who refer persons in need.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Organizations can opt out of a public listing; this is in some
cases crucial for the safety of their clients, as in the case of
domestic violence shelters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two main partnership levels within this program: Self
Service and Assistance. At Self Service sites, a computer is made
available to the public and the online portal is immediately
accessible. This is an excellent option for members of the community
who are comfortable using computers and have a strong command of the
technical language and processes used in the application process, but
who do not have access to a reliable Internet connection and a computer
with the latest authentication protocols installed.\5\ However, to be
honest, while I grew up in the age of technology and computers do not
generally present a challenge for me, as an AmeriCorps VISTA I found
the application jargon difficult to understand in places, especially
for a first time applicant looking for short-term benefits. This is why
HHSC created the second level of partnership, what we call Application
Assistance sites. At these sites, applicants can sit down with a staff
member or volunteer called a Navigator. These Navigators receive free
online training from the state that enables them to assist in and
answer questions regarding the application process. This reduces errors
in applications, saving the government both time and money while also
more promptly and efficiently providing resources to the Texans who
need them, and it utilizes extant charitable structures to
significantly decrease the need for government offices in many places
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This became particularly important after the OpenSSL exploit
became known last year, which left many websites vulnerable to nigh-
untraceable hacks. Fortunately, the HHSC computer systems were
protected, and there was no interruption in access for Texans using
this system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who?
The more than 1,100 organizations who partner with the state
comprise various constituencies and come from many different sectors,
including faith communities and faith-based ministries, Head Start
programs, libraries, hospitals and clinics, educational institutions
from Pre-K all the way through higher education, colonia programs,
land-grant universities, homelessness prevention and transitional
housing, rehabilitation centers, and domestic violence shelters. Of
those 1,100 distinct partners, we know that more than 375 work in
health and disability; 300 in education, early childhood intervention,
or afterschool programs; more than 60 offer protective or
rehabilitative services; and more than 50 offer employment assistance
and skill training (and we expect this number to increase significantly
very soon). Of the partners, about 200 are faith-based, and many others
obtain volunteers for nearby faith communities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category
---------------------------------------------
Sector Non-Faith Total
Based Faith-Based Government
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education 37 0 0 37
Health & 342 44 2 388
Disability
Early 264 0 0 264
Childhood
Intervention
&
Afterschool
Enrichment
Faith 0 69 0 69
Community &
related
Ministries
Government 3 0 6 9
Community 11 1 6 18
Center
Community 12 0 0 12
Development
Protective & 55 4 2 61
Rehabilitati
ve
Employment & 44 3 0 47
Skill
Training
Family 34 4 0 38
Services
Other 171 65 3 239
----------------------------------------------------------
Total 973 190 19 1,182
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliable transportation is one of the most common barriers for
economically vulnerable residents. Getting to an agency office for the
application itself, to submit appropriate documentation, and in some
cases to attend an in-person interview, is difficult when the applicant
does not own a reliable car. This results in missed appointments,
delayed processing times, and an additional burden not just on the
applicant, but on the agency eligibility workers. Our partners exist in
171 counties and 530 ZIP Codes. This means, when times get tough and
they need a hand up, approximately 3.4 of the 5.26 million (c. 66%) of
the presently SNAP eligible Texans could reach out to a partner in
their area to apply to, re-certify with, or (when things improve)
withdraw from the benefits program with the help of the community
members who care about them most, all at an incredibly low cost to the
state government.
Impact
Since the inception of this program, the percentage of applications
filed electronically has risen to 68.1 percent. This means that those
who are applying for benefits are doing so in a more efficient, cost
effective manner. Direct-service nonprofits have leveraged mutually
beneficial partnerships with the state to both build relationships with
and better serve their communities' needs. They see the whole person
and the whole neighborhood, not just a computation of income
percentages, asset limits, and benefit rates. To put this another way,
they seek not to determine the applicants' benefits, but how everything
might work together to be of benefit to the community.
What does this have to do with Baylor University?
The Texas Hunger Initiative is contracted by the state to perform
three key roles: implementation, translation, and evaluation. (I told
you I was an ordained Baptist minister, so you should have seen the
three points coming.)
Since this program began, THI has played a role in its
implementation. Staff in all 12 of our regional offices and members of
Texas Impact (TI) and the Texas Association of Community Health Centers
(TACHC) work to recruit, train, and support these organizations in
their partnerships with the state. Our staff members have relationships
with most of these organizations, and so are able to interact with them
on a level that would be much more difficult for a state agency to do
so.
This, of course, leads into our second role. In these public-
private partnerships, there is often a need for translating the
language of government programs to the nonprofit world and, conversely,
we nonprofits have a language all our own, complete with dialects of
social services, community centers, and religious groups. THI, TI, and
TACHC speak both languages.
Remember too that THI is part of Baylor University, and as such we
are in a unique position to do research on public-private partnerships.
Using information from the state, field data collected by staff, and
the feedback from community organizations working in the trenches,
Kathy Krey, Ph.D., THI Director of Research, and her team pool
quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate the impact and
effectiveness of the program, and to develop evidence--informed best
practices for all of the public-private partnerships in which we are
engaged.
Boots on the Ground
I have given you a high level overview, but ultimately we are
talking today about how public-private partnerships inform the ways
that government agencies and private nonprofits might work together to
help people, so I would like to finish by bringing this conversation
much closer to home.
When I returned from Iraq in 2008 I was released from active duty
and returned to the United States Marine Corps Reserve. With my degree
in theology and philosophy, I was perfectly poised for both seminary
and working at a coffee shop, so I did both. Preparing for ministry can
be arduous and time-consuming, but also expensive, so while earning my
masters of divinity degree, money was tight; at one point I lived for
12 days on cereal and peanut butter and jelly. Under the old benefits
application system, my option was this: I could get someone to cover my
8 hour shift (which, at $7.50/hr would cost me approximately \1/3\ of
the monthly SNAP maximum allotment) and spend a few hours waiting in a
government office for an interview while I fill out a paper application
as best I can, attempting to decipher the terms on the page (the first
potential source of errors). That application would then go to a
government employee, who then has to punch that application into a
computer system (the second potential source of simple error), before
it is submitted to the state. Everyone I interact with has noble goals:
to get me the benefits for which I legally qualify, and to ensure the
state program complies fully with the Federal regulations.
Under the partnership I have described in brief today, things are a
bit different. Instead of going to a government office, I call Will, a
minister at Calvary Baptist Church, a congregation a few blocks from my
house. ``Will,'' I say, ``I'm in a tight spot and I could use some
help.'' Will, with whom I have a personal relationship, schedules a
time with me that does not interfere with my job or my education, and
tells me about the various ways the church helps people in my
situation. If I would like to apply for public benefits, Will sits with
me to help me with the application online, as he has been trained to
do. Now in the end, if everything goes well, eventually I will receive
help using either system. But Will's goals are different: Will locates
my application assistance within the greater continuum of care within
this faith community, and he has a deep, personal interest in seeing my
community prosper, and in seeing me move from a place of vulnerability
to flourishing, so that instead of being a perpetual SNAP-recipient, I
am volunteering at the church to help them care for the rest of my
community.
The public sector can do and has done a great deal for economically
vulnerable Americans, and without the programs we are talking about,
the private sector would have hopes and good intentions, but no way to
realize them. But the government can never know me and my needs the way
a community based organization in my city can. Agencies execute
programs with precision and efficiency, but staff and volunteers at the
nonprofit that serves my neighborhood can put those programs in
perspective, seeing them as only part of the whole--a crucial but step
along the path to self-sufficiency and more full participation in the
systems and the life of the greater community.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kunz. Ms. Ender?
STATEMENT OF LYNDA TAYLOR ENDER, AGE (ADVOCACY GROUP FOR
ELDERS) DIRECTOR, THE SENIOR SOURCE,
DALLAS, TX
Ms. Ender. Chairman Conaway and Members of the Committee on
Agriculture, thank you for inviting me to speak on how one
nonprofit agency in Dallas, Texas, is engaging in a public-
private partnership to provide SNAP benefits to older adults.
My name is Lynda Taylor Ender, and I am the AGE Director at
The Senior Source, a nonprofit agency that has served older
adults in the greater Dallas area for over 50 years. Our
mission is to improve the quality of life of older adults
through protection, elder care, advocacy, volunteerism, and
employment services. While the majority of our clients are of
lesser means, many of our programs provide services to all
economic levels.
We are members of the Dallas Coalition for Hunger
Solutions, which has a Senior Hunger Action Team that is
working on increasing senior participation in SNAP and
attendance at congregant meal sites.
In 15 years, adults over 60 years of age will make up more
than 20 percent of the population in Texas. That means one in
five walking the mall will be over 60. The growth is a worry
because currently nine percent of seniors in Dallas County live
below the poverty line, and 57 percent of eligible seniors are
not receiving SNAP. Why aren't eligible seniors applying for
SNAP? Well, many do not realize the program exists or that they
might be eligible. They may not see themselves as poor. For
some there is a stigma attached to accepting government
assistance. Some seniors believe it would be too difficult to
apply or believe the myth that they would only get $7 so it is
not worth applying.
A lack of transportation and a complicated application
process can be deterrents. As a community partner, The Senior
Source is certified by the Texas Health and Human Services
Commission to provide assistance to people interested in
accessing benefits. The SNAP application is complicated and
confusing, even for professionals. Our Elder Support Program
staff have been specially trained to navigate the online
application, and they have access to support help when they
need it.
When an older adult contacts our agency for any kind of
assistance, we try to help them with any emergency need they
have first, like food from our small pantry. Next we will ask
them, if they would like to make an appointment to see if we
can assist them further. Usually they will. When they come for
the appointment, we evaluate if the person could qualify for
SNAP or any other benefits. Our social workers allow 1\1/2\
hours to work with an individual on completing a SNAP
application. We access emergency SNAP for many applicants. They
can get help in less than a week. Most of our applicants are
approved for a year because their income does not change. Most
of our clients who apply for SNAP are awarded between $16 and
$194 a month. The majority of our clients are women, and their
age range is 60 to 90.
An example of a client would be a 77 year old woman who
contacted The Senior Source requesting assistance. Her husband
had recently died, and her income had been reduced to $970 a
month. She was having a difficult time paying her rent,
utilities, purchasing food, and medications. Staff determined
that she was eligible for SNAP. She was awarded $194 a month in
SNAP benefits. This resulted in a yearly savings of $2,328.
While this does not address the fact that her income is still
less than $12,000 a year, this will help ensure that she has
access to healthy food.
Every day we see what occurs when an older adult does not
have enough healthy food to eat. Without good nutrition, they
are more prone to illnesses and falls, are more likely to show
signs of mental confusion and be victims of financial or
physical abuse. For these reasons, they may lose their ability
to live independently. There is a very real need for Community
Partners and navigators because the application is confusing to
older adults, the notices are confusing, and they feel more
comfortable going to a trusted organization in their community
for assistance.
Thank you again for the opportunity to talk to you about
how The Senior Source assists older adults with the SNAP
application process through a public-private partnership.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ender follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lynda Taylor Ender, AGE (Advocacy Group for
Elders) Director, The Senior Source, Dallas, TX
A Community Partner's View of SNAP's Role in Combating Older Adult
Hunger
Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
Committee on Agriculture, thank you for inviting me to speak on this
important topic. My name is Lynda Taylor Ender, and I am the AGE
Director at The Senior Source, a nonprofit agency that serves older
adults in the greater Dallas area. I educate members of our community
on older adult issues and advocate on those issues with public
policymakers utilizing my experience as a teacher in the public
schools, a legislative aide to a state senator and most importantly as
a caregiver for aging parents.
The Senior Source
Mission and Vision
Senior Citizens of Greater Dallas, Inc., doing business as The
Senior Source, has served the Dallas community for more than fifty
years. Although the nature and scope of agency services has evolved
over time, The Senior Source remains steadfast in its mission to
improve the quality of life of older adults in the greater Dallas area
through protection, eldercare, advocacy, volunteerism and employment
services.
Specific Needs Addressed by The Senior Source
The Senior Source provides services to the community through its
ten programs. The programs serve those 50 years of age and over and
family members of older adults. Services are offered in Dallas and
Collin Counties, except for the Nursing Home Ombudsman Program and the
Elder Financial Safety Center, which cover only Dallas County. More
than 25,000 clients of all ethnicities and income levels are served
annually by 63 staff members operating under a 55 member Board of
Directors. While the majority of clients are at the poverty or low
income level, many of the programs of the agency provide service to all
economic levels. The programs address a wide spectrum of the needs of
older adults. For those who still need to work and are able, we have an
employment program. We assist older adults in accessing meaningful
volunteer opportunities, provide supportive services to enable
vulnerable elderly to remain living in their own homes, and for the
frailest, provide guardianship or nursing home ombudsman services. We
also provide services to caregivers of older adults. Through the new
Elder Financial Safety Center, financial needs of older adults in the
areas of prevention, protection, and prosecution are addressed.
Hunger Addressed by The Senior Source
It is our long history of working in our community to protect and
improve the quality of life for older adults that led to our joining
the Dallas Coalition for Hunger Solutions. One of the Coalition's
action teams is the Senior Hunger Action Team chaired by Katie
Dickinson, Chief Administrative Officer of The Senior Source and
established in May of 2014. Since that time, the Team has been working
hard on a strategic planning process to create a set of goals to study
senior hunger and to develop implementable strategies for reducing it.
Representatives from many organizations brought their expertise to the
table. The Team has studied the current landscape of senior hunger in
Dallas, identified barriers that currently exist to solving the problem
of senior hunger and pinpointed the resources available to overcome
those barriers. The Team has identified short term goals and strategies
to achieve those goals. They have issued a report to describe the
challenges seniors face accessing food, share the Senior Hunger Action
Teams plans and invite other community members to join them in
addressing this critical community need.
The Senior Hunger Action Team has decided to focus in the short-
term on two key strategies for reducing senior hunger:
Increasing senior participation in SNAP.
Increasing senior attendance at publicly funded daily
congregate meal sites.
They will focus primarily on raising awareness by developing and
distributing literature that describes the value of SNAP, ways to get
the most out of using it and the variety of ways that seniors can
apply, including by phone and in person at community organizations that
serve as HHSC Community Partners. Distribution of literature will be
through churches, Meals on Wheels delivery drivers, AARP, homeowners
associations, caregivers and health care providers. They will provide
information at community events and local markets. They will provide
peer-to-peer SNAP counseling for seniors and reach out to apartment
managers at properties with large senior populations.
Mapping the Landscape of Senior Hunger
Seniors are a swiftly growing population in the United States, and
especially in Texas. Seniors over the age of 60 are estimated to make
up over 16% of the population in Texas and in the next fifteen years
that number is expected to jump to 20%.
Projected Percentage of Age 60+ Population in Texas
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: HHSC Administration on Aging.
Note: 2001-2003 based on interpolation between 2000 and 2004
data.
Projected Percentage of Age 60+ Population in Texas
That means that by the year 2030 there will be over 6.5 million
people who are older than 60 in Texas alone. In Dallas County, the
second most populous county in Texas, the senior population is expected
to rise by over 60,000 by the year 2020.
Nearly 90 percent of people over age 65 want to stay in their home
for as long as possible, and 80 percent believe their current residence
is where they will always live. (AARP, December 2011)
Projected Number of Age 65+ Population in Dallas County
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Richard Amory, North Texas Food Bank.
This is hardly surprising given the fact that the baby boomer
generation has begun to age into this category, and it would not be
cause for concern if not for the fact that currently 9% of seniors in
Dallas County live below the poverty line. That means that over 20,000
seniors in Dallas County may not know where their next meal is coming
from and often have to choose between feeding themselves and paying
their bills.
On top of this, many seniors in Dallas County are homebound, as
nearly 25,000 households in Dallas headed by seniors have no access to
a vehicle. Transportation is a big factor in senior hunger; if a senior
is unable to drive themselves to a grocery store, or if they must take
a bus or rely on a family member for transportation, it is likely to
influence how often they make the journey and how well they eat between
trips. Fortunately, there are some programs in place to help seniors
who are food insecure, including SNAP and senior meals programs.
Many seniors are eligible to receive SNAP, meaning that their
income is low enough that they qualify for this assistance.
Unfortunately, 65% of those eligible nationally are not currently
receiving this important benefit. In Dallas County, 57% of eligible
seniors are not receiving SNAP. That amounts to over 19,000 seniors in
Dallas County who are low-income and need assistance purchasing food,
but are not receiving the help they are likely eligible for.
SNAP Data for Dallas County Seniors, age 65+
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Barriers to Seniors Accessing SNAP
There are a myriad of reasons why eligible seniors may not be
receiving SNAP. Many seniors simply do not realize that this program
exists or that they might be eligible. Often there is a stigma attached
to accepting government assistance; people feel that they should be
able to get by on their own, even when it is increasingly difficult to
do so. They may not see themselves as poor. Some seniors believe that
it would be too difficult to apply or the myth that they would only get
$7 so they don't believe applying to be worth it. A lack of
transportation to get to an office to apply for assistance and the fact
that the application process is complicated for them can be deterrents.
Other significant barriers include financial issues and eligibility
concerns. As a person ages, it can sometimes be more difficult for them
to manage their finances and often the bills one is obligated to pay
(medical bills, among others) can increase dramatically with age.
Financial and eligibility issues are often intertwined. For example, a
widow who had never handled finances before her husband passed away
might have a difficult time making ends meet with her suddenly lower
income and still may not be eligible for SNAP due to assets she has,
such as a car or a small amount of savings.
The Senior Source is working to educate seniors on SNAP in their
daily interactions with clients. We are Community Partners, which means
that we are certified by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission
to provide assistance to people interested in accessing benefits
through YourTexasBenefits.com. We focus primarily on assisting seniors
to access benefits by having tech-savvy individuals on-site who are
ready to answer questions and walk seniors through the application
process step by step. There are also many other agencies serving as
Community Partners that can provide assistance to seniors in applying
for benefits. The Senior Source has a Money Management Program and an
Elder Financial Safety Center that can help with insurance, financial
planning and more.
Overview of a Community Partner
When an older adult contacts The Senior Source for any kind of
assistance, we try to help them with any emergency need and an example
would be food from our small pantry. Next, we will ask them if they
would like to make an appointment for us to see if we can assist them
further. Usually, they will, and we mail them a reminder notice with a
check list of documents they need to bring with them and a copy of the
Intake Form. Copies of the Intake Form and meeting notice are attached.
When they come for the appointment, we evaluate if the person could
qualify for SNAP, Medicare savings, Medicaid, or any other benefits.
Housing and medical bills are the high costs that help them qualify.
If our clients' SNAP applications are denied, it is most often
because of income and/or missing documents. The SNAP application is
complicated and confusing even for professionals. Our Elder Support
Program staff have been specially trained to navigate the online
application.
We have found that clients have a difficult time going to a food
stamp office. They may be intimidated because they have to make an
appointment, they may not feel comfortable having to wait, and we are
told by them that the staff at SNAP offices are not as polite to them
as we are. They may choose to go to a food pantry instead and call us
for other assistance.
Our social workers allow 1\1/2\ hours to work with an individual on
completing a SNAP application. We access emergency SNAP for many
applicants. They can get help in less than a week. It has to be renewed
every month until their application is processed. After they are
approved, most of our applicants are approved for a year because their
income does not change. Even with SNAP, it is hard for recipients to
afford fruits and vegetables.
Most of our clients who are eligible for SNAP do apply for it and
are awarded between $16-$194. The majority of our clients are women,
two for every man and the age range is 60-90.
A 77 year old woman contacted The Senior Source requesting
assistance. Her husband had recently died, and her income had been
reduced to $970 a month. She was having a difficult time paying her
rent, utilities and purchasing food and medications. After meeting with
the client, staff determined that she was eligible for SNAP. She made
an appointment with a Benefits Specialist and was assisted in applying
for this benefit. She was awarded $194 a month in SNAP benefits.
Through our community resources, we were also able to pay her utility
bill for 1 month saving her an additional $174. This resulted in yearly
savings for the client of over $2,500. While this does not address the
fact that her income is still less than $12,000 a year, this will help
insure that she has access to healthy food.
Being a Community Partner helps us to meet our mission of improving
the quality of life of older adults. Without adequate nutrition, it is
very difficult for an aging person to maintain his or her health. And
without good health, the older adult is not able to remain independent,
and often ends up in an assisted living or nursing facility. This is a
great opportunity for our staff to be proactive to our clients' needs.
Every day we see what occurs when an older adult does not have enough
healthy food to eat. Without good nutrition, they are more prone to
illnesses, are more likely to show signs of mental confusion, more
prone to falls, and are more likely to be victims of financial and/or
physical abuse, all reasons why they lose their ability to live
independently in the community.
Being a Community Partner has given our social workers training,
and they have access to support help when they need it. Our RSVP
Program is training more navigators to assist people in applying for
SNAP at other nonprofits.
There is a very real need for Community Partners and navigators
because the application is confusing to older adults, the notices are
confusing, and they feel more comfortable going to a trusted
organization in their community for assistance.
Thank you again for the opportunity to talk to you about how our
nonprofit organization plays a role in the SNAP application process
with older adults.
Attachments
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Ender. Mr. Webb?
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN WEBB, DIRECTOR,
FOUNDATIONS AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, FEED THE CHILDREN,
EDMOND, OK
Mr. Webb. Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson,
Members of the Committee, it is truly an honor to be among my
colleagues today to testify on SNAP and the role of nonprofits
in addressing hunger in the United States. Thank you for the
opportunity to share about our work and offer insight into how
nonprofits and government can strengthen our vital
collaboration. Also, thank you to my fellow witnesses from
Texas Hunger Initiative, Texas Community Partner Program, the
Greater Chicago Food Depository, and Ms. Green-Patton for
coming to the table to share their experience and shed light on
both the nexus of the Federal nutrition safety net and the
necessary role and work of nonprofits.
My name is Jonathan Webb. I am a Director of Foundation and
Community Engagement with Feed the Children. Feed the Children
is based in Oklahoma City. We are one of the largest anti-
hunger organizations in the United States. We are 99 percent
privately funded with less than one percent of our funds coming
from Federal Government resources. Half of our programming
occurs in 18 countries internationally while the other \1/2\
occurs domestically in the United States.
One of our strengths is our network of 1,200 partner
agencies. The majority of the people that we serve are enrolled
in SNAP or some other form of Federal nutrition assistance. We
applaud the Congress for upholding SNAP in the 2014 Farm Bill
and for investing in new, innovative demonstration projects on
both childhood hunger and SNAP employment and training.
SNAP is an invaluable resource and a strong safety net for
the children and families we serve. Without it, hunger in
America would be much, much worse. While we strongly support
the value of SNAP as a tool, we believe it should not be the
only tool. Having international and domestic operations
provides Feed the Children with a unique vantage point.
Globally, both child deaths and absolute poverty have decreased
by 50 percent since 1990. We believe this to be due to
collective impact. Hunger is a complex issue with many
underlying causes which include poverty, education,
unemployment, and health. This means that no one organization
can address the issue alone.
Internationally the collaborative approach is one that
leverages existing community assets while collectively building
the foundational elements to transform a community and move it
from its current situation. Domestically, while the war on
poverty has had great strides, poverty still exists. In the
United States, our approach to anti-hunger lacks collaboration,
and it does not always address the underlying causes of hunger.
This is not due to groups not willing to work together or not
understanding the issue. The issue is that sometimes often the
available funding sources don't incentivize collaboration.
The role of nonprofits in a domestic fight against hunger
should be as a collaborator, an innovator, and an evaluator.
Given the complexity of the hunger issue, we need an all-hands-
on-deck approach that allows nonprofits and a cross-section of
players to serve as an incubator, giving us the freedom to test
innovative solutions, the flexibility to fail, and in the
process find transformative solutions that could be measured
for impact and ultimately scaled up.
We believe the government is in a position to encourage
collaboration around these three roles. Therefore, we make the
following three recommendations. One, we recommend that
Congress use existing resources to create the Food and Security
and Nutrition Social Innovation Fund. This would promote
collaboration among nonprofits, community leaders, faith
groups, and academics and would allow us to collectively
create, identify, and scale up those programs and models and
the policies that decrease the number of people who need the
safety net, instead of just trying to improve the safety net.
It also creates an opportunity for anti-hunger organizations to
share best practices more efficiently.
Second, we recommend that Congress focus on funding for
nonprofits working collaboratively on demonstration projects
that test innovative approaches to improving food insecurity
and administering Federal Nutrition Programs.
Last, we recommend that Congress require an impact
measurement of programs using food security and nutrition
indicators to determine progress towards a larger goal.
Again, we thank you for the opportunity to be part of
today's hearing. Feed the Children is committed to creating a
world where no child goes to bed hungry. We welcome the
dialogue and hope to be a part of this ongoing conversation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Webb follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Webb, Director, Foundations and
Community Engagement, Feed the Children, Edmond, OK
Fostering Innovation, Collaboration, and Improved Measurement
Introduction
Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
Committee, it is an honor to be among my colleagues here today to
testify on the role of the charitable sector in addressing hunger in
the United States. Thank you for the opportunity to share about our
work and offer insight into how the nonprofit community and government
can strengthen our vital collaboration. Additionally, thank you to my
fellow witnesses from Texas Hunger Initiative, Texas Community Partner
Program, and the Greater Chicago Food Depository for coming to the
table to share their experience and shed light on both the nexus of the
Federal nutrition safety net and the necessary role and work of
nonprofits.
Feed the Children's mission is to ensure that no child goes to bed
hungry. To this end, Feed the Children works alongside the government,
serving individuals and communities struggling to overcome food
insecurity. Based in Oklahoma City, Feed the Children is one of the
largest charitable organizations in the U.S. Over the last 36 years, we
have developed a national partnership network of over 1,200 agencies
and established a legacy of meeting the immediate needs of Americans
struggling with food insecurity and educational challenges in all 50
states. We provide critical relief after natural disasters and support
our community partners who serve populations in rural and urban
communities. The majority of people we serve are enrolled in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or another form of
Federal nutrition assistance. Collaborating with grassroots leaders, we
have built a track record of combating childhood hunger through dynamic
local partnerships and impactful programing. Today, we will present
three concrete suggestions for how the Federal Government can leverage
its infrastructure to better incentivize collaboration among
nonprofits.
As the Director of Foundations and Community Engagement, I work
closely with private companies, charitable organizations, and
individual donors that together provide 99% of our funding.
Additionally, I assist in facilitating Feed the Children's pioneer
efforts to root our programing in research-based, partnership
initiatives.
Five years ago, Feed the Children conducted a detailed assessment
on how we--and our vast partner network--approach hunger here in the
U.S. Our assessment revealed that our U.S.-based programing was simply
not as effective as our global anti-hunger work. Despite the challenges
of working in impoverished developing countries, we were winning the
fight against hunger overseas. In the U.S., with its thriving economic
and government infrastructure, this simply was not the case. The
difference? Internationally, Feed the Children and many nonprofits work
collaboratively on addressing the root causes of hunger. Domestically,
far too often, our hunger initiatives operate independently from (or,
worse, at odds with) other like-minded government and nonprofit
entities. Both then and now, the social sector in the U.S. remains
focused on the isolated interventions of individual organizations to
solve complex problems.\1\ Armed with this understanding, Feed the
Children launched a new phase of collaborative, partner-based
programing in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kania, John and Kramer, Mark. (2011) Collective Impact.
Stanford Social Innovation Review. http://www.ssireview.org/articles/
entry/collective_impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an organization, Feed the Children recognizes that evidence
points to the need for broad, cross-sectoral coordination to bring
about systemic social change. We fight hunger through integrated,
child-focused community development. We combine our resources with
existing community assets to teach parents and family leaders new
skills, improve livelihoods, encourage savings, improve environments
and infrastructures, and promote behavior change. Recognizing the
imperative of grassroots leadership, we strengthen the abilities for
families and communities to stand on their own, fostering sustainable
change.
Globally, we are calling upon innovative and effective tools and
methods that are constantly emerging through the collaborative work of
a wide set of stakeholders: nonprofits, local communities, academic
institutions, businesses, and governments. And the results are
impressive. Globally, both child deaths and absolute poverty have
decreased by \1/2\ since 1990, accompanied by many other improvements
in food security and nutrition. A parallel innovation and progress can
be unleashed in the United States if we can learn from these lessons.
In the U.S., we can decrease childhood poverty and deaths, and
simultaneously increase food security and nutrition through an active
effort to promote collaboration and by focusing on innovation,
measurement, and a continuous improvement in methods.
The U.S. requires a strong safety net for poor children and their
families. As an organization, we firmly uphold the value and role of
SNAP and other Federal nutrition programs. However, as we reach the
50th anniversary of America declaring a War on Poverty, we believe that
our national strategy for fighting hunger must be broadened and made
more inclusive so that fewer Americans will require that safety net. We
are eager to work with you to support the independence and vitality of
these communities and families.
Feed the Children applauds the Congress for strengthening SNAP in
the 2014 Farm Bill and for investing in new, innovative demonstration
projects on both childhood hunger and SNAP employment and training. The
topic of this hearing is timely and we recommend the U.S. government
improve multi-sector collaboration as an avenue to move SNAP
participants beyond the safety net. We support this sentiment and agree
that, to effectively bolster SNAP, we must move beyond the question of
simply adding funds or cutting dollars. As a part of this hearing, Feed
the Children recommends strengthening programs and interventions that
will sustainably support current SNAP participants and the overall
program.
The Current Role of Nonprofits
Learning from our successes and failures in the U.S. and around the
world, Feed the Children is focused on championing partnership and
innovation, working with and through trusted grassroots organizations.
With our partners, we offer the Federal Government an opportunity to
strengthen our collective response to food insecurity by further
incentivizing anti-hunger stakeholders to collaboratively end hunger.
Feed the Children's program staff in Oklahoma City, New York City,
and New Orleans are deeply and thoughtfully engaged with local
communities and are pioneering integrated approaches to ending child
hunger. We use innovative and evidence-based ways to improve Americans'
nutrition and food security. For example, as humans, many of our
beliefs about what is good or acceptable to eat are patterned and fixed
in the first years of our lives.\2\ Humans naturally form their diets
based on what foods are more familiar to them.\3\ Consequently,
identifying ways to improve what children's perceptions of healthy food
are, and their approach to nutritious meals is critical to changing
what Americans eat. For that reason, Feed the Children uses a peer
educator model that has spread to 28 countries around the world--Care
Groups--to reach parents of very young children in our New Orleans Food
and Education Oasis Project. This innovative model has been shown to
double the nutrition behavior change of other program models at very
low cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Smith, T. (2004) The McDonald's Equilibrium: Advertising, Empty
Calories, and the Endogenous Determination of Dietary Preferences.
Department of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara. Smith
T. and Tasnadi A. (2007) A Theory of Natural Addiction. Games and
Economic Behavior. http://ssrn.com/abstract=979192.
\3\ Smith, Trenton, and A. Tasnadi. (2007) ``A Theory of Natural
Addiction.'' Games and Economic Behavior. Available at SSRN: http://
ssrn.com/abstract=979192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our home State of Oklahoma, Feed the Children is pioneering an
innovative way to increase access to healthier food options for
families in rural areas. In partnership with the Chickasaw Nation and
through a USDA demonstration project, we are leveraging our
organization's strong logistical capabilities to better serve families
in rural Oklahoma that struggle with healthy food access. A report from
USDA's Economic Research Service \4\ found that giving SNAP
beneficiaries the option to preorder groceries by telephone or online
could improve their food choices. Using this evidence, our program will
allow families to use their EBT cards to grocery shop online and have
their meals delivered through the U.S. Postal Service. This partnership
is the first of its kind for both the Chickasaw Nation and Feed the
Children. It has fostered programmatic collaboration outside of our own
respective organizations to improve how SNAP dollars are used to ensure
healthier meals. This partnership would not be possible without the
strong, bipartisan support of the Congress in authorizing the
Demonstration Project to End Childhood Hunger. In addition to improving
families' nutrition, by funding this demonstration project, the
government has helped Feed the Children and the Chickasaw Nation deepen
our collaboration outside of the grant. For example, using private
funding, we are now collaborating with the Chickasaw Nation to improve
their nutrition programs by conducting formative research on The
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC), SNAP education, Summer EBT, and farmers' markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Just D., Mancino L. and Wansink B. (2007). Could Behavioral
Economics Help Improve Diet Quality for Nutrition Assistance Program
Participants? USDA, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report
No. 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feed the Children is also striving to foster stronger collaboration
within the nonprofit, academic, and government sectors. We have learned
the value of identifying ``bright spots'' and are committed to helping
scale-up those best practices and program models. We launched the
Center for Children and Social Engagement to help our own organization,
other nonprofits, and academic institutions engage in more knowledge
sharing and collaboration to laterally scale-up--organization to
organization--cost-effective, innovative program models that improve
child nutrition and food security.
Additionally, Feed the Children is an active member of Mission
Measurement, which brings the power of data science to social impact,
enabling decision makers to maximize their return on investment. We are
also part of the Clinton Global Initiative, which is formulating
collective commitments to the U.S. Food Insecurity Call to Action for
child, adolescent, and youth hunger, and healthy food access issues. We
are working closely with a range of nonprofit and private sector
partners to improve our collective strategy advancing efforts to
increase participation in ``out of school time'' feeding programs and
increase access to healthy and fresh food options in under-served
communities. These represent prime examples of how nonprofits are
striving to leverage their community resources to strengthen and
support Federal nutrition programs, like SNAP and the Summer Food
Service Program (SFSP). Despite these gains, we can only do so much to
promote collaboration across sectors with our private resources, and we
encourage the U.S. Government to do more to incentivize coordination
among nonprofits, academic institutions, and government agencies.
When addressing the issue of food insecurity, nonprofits often
focus on providing short-term, palliative responses to hunger rather
than dealing with the underlying causes. Many times, the nonprofit
sector presents emotional appeals to the public around acute needs that
generate funds. This approach can be successful, but makes it difficult
for funding agencies to support innovative hunger-prevention work. The
system tends to reward organizational individualism rather than
collaboration. As a result, nonprofits working on hunger issues often
view themselves as competitors rather than partners in the fight
against child hunger. Viewing peer organizations as competitors hinders
the broad, cross-sectoral collaboration needed for social change.
Nonprofits, academic institutions, local communities, and government
agencies need stronger government incentives to coordinate their
efforts. We commend the House Agriculture Committee for pulling
together a few of our partners to have a more intentional conversation
on the role of nonprofits in addressing hunger. It is our hope that the
following recommendations will present an opportunity to formalize our
collaboration.
The Role of Feed the Children
An estimated 49 million households struggle with the volatile
nature of food insecurity. These individuals and their families need
initiatives that simultaneously support and prevent them from needing a
long-term safety net. What they need is a reliable, short-term, and
cost-effective safety net, and ongoing programs that help them recover
from situational adversity so they can move off the safety net as
quickly as possible.
In our 36 years of fighting hunger, Feed the Children has learned
that nonprofits, government agencies, and other anti-hunger
stakeholders cannot continue to address this problem in our respective
silos. Deeper collaboration among anti-hunger stakeholders will yield
innovative, more effective, and sustainable program models. The Federal
Government has the unique ability to serve as the organizing
infrastructure to incentivize a transformative, collective approach to
end hunger. Feed the Children seeks to collaborate with others to
identify what is working, foster stronger innovation and collaboration
among anti-hunger stakeholders, and to collectively define what it
means to have impact on food security and nutrition. This partnership
needs to be formalized at the national level since no one organization
can do it alone.
Each of the following recommendations seeks to establish mechanisms
that foster innovation, collaboration, and improved measurement of
results and impact in order to ultimately decrease the number of
individuals who need the Federal safety net; improve food security and
nutrition; and make the safety net more cost-effective.
Recommendation 1: The Food Security and Nutrition Social Innovation
Fund
Feed the Children recommends that Congress use existing resources
to formalize its work with the nonprofit community and academic
institutions to establish a Food Security and Nutrition Social
Innovation Fund. The purpose of this Social Innovation Fund will be to
promote collaboration among nonprofits, community leaders, faith
groups, academics, and the government. Such collaboration would seek to
create, identify, and scale-up program models and policies that
decrease the number of people who need the safety net, not just improve
it. Creation of an inclusive, national, implementer-driven network of
anti-hunger practitioners--a ``community of practice''--would allow
them to:
better understand what each organization (and agency) is
doing in a given geographical area and foster coordination of
efforts;
learn how to conduct formative research that can improve
program outcomes;
disseminate and integrate research findings and best
practices into program activities;
learn to accurately monitor and evaluate in order to
identify what is working best (and not working), and collect
and analyze evidence;
challenge old, ineffective, and wasteful program models;
create tools (e.g., training manuals, videos) that are
helpful in laterally scaling up the best program models and
approaches (across organizations and states); and
build consensus and skills in program planning, design, and
implementation.
The Food Security and Nutrition Social Innovation Fund will be
principally used for innovation grants that are administered to a
consortia of nonprofits, academic institutions, community-based
organizations, and other food security practitioners (e.g., social
enterprises). Such grants would require organizations to apply and work
together (rather than to single organizations) to document their
innovative work, test ideas, and scale-up successful programs from
organization to organization. Grants from the fund would enable
organizations to:
create training manuals and conduct trainings for
practitioners on innovative food security and nutrition program
models (e.g., the Liberty's Kitchen \5\ social enterprise
model) and tools (e.g., Barrier Analysis \6\ for formative
research);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See http://libertyskitchen.org.
\6\ Kittle, Bonnie. (2013) A Practical Guide to Conducting a
Barrier Analysis. New York, NY: Helen Keller International. http://
www.coregroup.org/storage/barrier/
Practical_Guide_to_Conducting_a_Barrier_Analysis_Oct_2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
improve measurement of their work;
conduct demonstration projects to test scale-up of promising
ideas (see below), strengthen and improve SNAP and other
Federal nutrition programs for specific populations; and
foster project partnerships (e.g., through planning grants)
with universities, faith groups, and municipalities.
Feed the Children estimates that the initial investment needed to
establish the Food Security and Nutrition Social Innovation would be
roughly $370 million of overall annual funding, which includes $333
million for the innovation grants and $37 million to maintain a
national community of practice (network), including development and
maintenance of an online repository of anti-hunger tools and methods;
listservs; working groups; face-to-face and online meetings; and
practitioner training.
Many nonprofits and academic institutions welcome the opportunity
to further collaborate on programs and knowledge sharing, but lack the
resources to bring together the group required to implement these
plans. Because the Food Security and Nutrition Social Innovation Fund
will be driven by a diverse group of stakeholders, it will allow
practitioners to break down the silos that have historically prevented
a review of the cross-sectoral issues that define hunger. Leveraging
the various skill sets from community leaders, nonprofits, academics,
churches, and governments will allow us to creatively collaborate on
solutions that move beyond increasing access to direct services and
emergency response to more integrated community development.
This community of practice would be able to help identify best
practices and scale up work in improving access to--and production of--
healthy foods in low-income areas (urban and rural); improving child
nutrition; dealing with mental health and trauma issues that often
underpin food insecurity; and getting people receiving government
nutrition assistance back to work--into better paying, high quality
jobs. It will also allow collaborators to strengthen interactions
between government, nonprofits, and SNAP participants, while
identifying innovative solutions to such challenges as employment
training, retention, re-certification, and caseload turnover.
Where This Collaborative Model Has Worked
Feed the Children has witnessed this collaborative model work in
breaking down silos and generating life-saving solutions in the field
of international food security and nutrition. The manner in which the
U.S. government facilitated and incentivized collaboration and program
improvement among organizations, academic institutions, and government
agencies working on international food security and nutrition could be
replicated to improve domestic food security and nutrition.
For example, the Food Security and Nutrition Network \7\ was
created through a USAID Food for Peace grant to Save the Children and
four other organizations in the TOPS Project to improve food security
and nutrition in developing countries. The network now has 210 member
organizations that work closely to produce training manuals, create new
tools (e.g., for assessment and formative research), test new program
models, and improve members' knowledge and skillsets. The network holds
regular online and face-to-face meetings of food security implementers,
maintains a website and online repository of resources, organizes
working groups, and makes innovation grants available to members of the
network. As a result, the network has considerably improved the scale-
up of food security and nutrition models and tools through peer-to-peer
adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See www.fsnnetwork.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second example is the CORE Group's Child Health Network.\8\ The
Child Health Network was created with funding from USAID's Child
Survival and Health Grants Program. This network now has 70+ member and
associate nonprofit and academic organizations working together with
government agencies to reduce child deaths. Many of the same strategies
used in the FSN Network (e.g., working groups, innovation grants) are
used in the Child Health Network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See www.coregroup.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, to fund communities of practice (network groups), the
Federal Government can also help foster better collaboration among
domestic anti-hunger actors through the structure of grant funding
(e.g., creating RFAs that encourage multi-organization consortia to
respond rather than single organizations). Federal funds that support
collaboration among multi-sector stakeholders allows nonprofits to play
the role of social innovator or solution tester to identify those
programs that can be reasonably scaled up and have a measurable impact
in communities of need. Formation of a thriving community of practice
and better structuring of grants (e.g., for demonstration projects)
will lead to better, faster development, and scale-up of more cost-
effective program models that can help defeat hunger.
Recommendation 2: Demonstration Projects
Feed the Children recommends that Congress focus funding for
nonprofits working collaboratively on demonstration projects that test
new, innovative approaches to improving food security and nutrition,
and in administering Federal nutrition programs. To this end, Congress
should continue to dedicate funding for nonprofits implementing
targeted demonstration projects, and ensure USDA implements these and
other Federal food security and nutrition programs with reasonable and
effective program rules and requirements. Currently, a majority of
promising Federal grants are primarily run through state agencies that
can be ineffective and overly bureaucratic.
Exemplifying the benefit of this type of funding, two significant
demonstration projects by USDA were recently rolled out: The
Demonstration Projects to End Childhood Hunger,\9\ and the SNAP
Employment and Training Pilots,\10\ which were conducted in ten states
to help SNAP participants to find jobs and work toward self-
sufficiency. These two opportunities help foster the sort of
collaboration we recommend on a larger scale. Feed the Children
applauds the Congress for making such investments and creating
platforms to improve Federal nutrition programs like SNAP. While these
opportunities represent laudable support for innovative approaches to
improving nutrition and food security, there must be increased focus on
fostering innovation. Additionally, without the presence of a community
of practice, demonstration projects will not do enough to stimulate
innovation. By encouraging lateral scale-up of program models and tools
through a larger share of these government funds, more organizations
will adopt ways of fighting hunger in their privately funded programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See http://www.fns.usda.gov/demonstration-projects-end-
childhood-hunger.
\10\ See http://www.fns.usda.gov/2014-snap-e-t-pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, funds for these sorts of demonstration projects are
typically channeled through state agencies. Implementation of these
promising projects should directly focus on nonprofits, academic
institutions, and community organizations. Working collaboratively with
the government, nonprofits will be able to leverage significant private
resources, and broad participation from community and academic
organizations to make a real impact on food security and nutrition
challenges. Demonstration projects and other Federal USDA grant
opportunities should be designed in a way that creates pathways for
resources to the groups serving local communities and have low barriers
to entry for small- and medium-sized nonprofits. Such organizations are
severely limited in how they can partner with the Federal Government.
The nonprofit sector is a vital partner of the government, and yet
there are several Federal USDA grants that are difficult, if not
impossible, for nonprofits to access.
Recommendation 3: Measurement and Impact
To sustainably relieve people of being ``beneficiaries'' of
government and nonprofit assistance, Feed the Children recommends the
Congress require results and impact measurement of programs using food
security and nutrition indicators that assess which programs are having
the most impact on food insecurity and nutrition.
Ronald Reagan believed that every problem in America has been
solved somewhere in America and that the job of the Federal Government
is to replicate success. This is true in the category of food security.
Functional, effective anti-hunger programs already exist. Feed the
Children and our partners offer several examples of how we can fight
hunger through grassroots initiatives. The Federal Government can
support nonprofits to study success, measure success, and replicate
success.
Feed the Children recently launched its Center for Children and
Social Engagement initiative based in New York City. The Center for
Children is tasked with identifying domestic and international programs
that foster and measure innovation around child nutrition and food
security. For example, in New Orleans, Liberty's Kitchen is a social
enterprise dedicated to transforming the lives of vulnerable youth.
Liberty's Kitchen provides a path to bright and healthy futures through
employability and life skills training and by providing freshly
prepared, nutritious meals to schoolchildren. Though relatively small,
Liberty's Kitchen staff is prioritizing strong investments in
measurement and impact, while intentionally sharing their model,
success, and failures with other groups around the U.S. The Center for
Children will continue to work with Liberty's Kitchen to better
understand this program's success and capture its best practices to be
replicated around the country. This local, community model leverages
existing community assets and the Federal safety net to deploy unique
programs around job skills training and nutrition education to
ultimately empower youth to flourish mentally, economically, and
physically. Building on this success, we encourage the Federal
Government to support this type of measurement and impact by
incentivizing more nonprofits to better measure programs to improve
food security and nutrition.
More Federal grant applications should require measurement of a
key, consistent set of food security and nutrition indicators to better
assess which food security and nutrition program models are having the
most impact. This requirement to measure key indicators has been one
way that the U.S. Government has stimulated competition amongst
international nonprofits and other agencies to continuously improve
their methods for improving food security and nutrition, and to
increase accountability, and to have a common understanding of what
constitutes progress.
Additionally, Feed the Children recommends the Congress make
changes to how Federal programs are measured by taking into account
food security and nutrition services enabled by Federal investments but
paid for with private funds. This approach will further strengthen the
role of nonprofits and encourage stronger and more effective public
private partnerships. The USDA can develop a list of required
indicators for measurement of programs receiving funds from the Food
Security and Nutrition Social Innovation Fund that will be used in
programs and reported to the Congress. This will focus innovation on
interventions that move the needle around the focus areas. For example,
depending on the type of funded program, demonstrative indicators that
would be measured before and after projects would include the:
proportion of children and adolescents who consume fruits
and vegetables five or more times per day and who meet physical
activity guidelines;
proportion of children 6-13 years with a normal BMI; and
percentage reduction in people qualifying for SNAP in a
given low-income Census tract.
Conclusion
Feed the Children stands ready to collaborate with the Federal
Government in fostering innovation, collaboration, and improved
measurement. The 50th anniversary of America declaring a War on Poverty
has come and gone. Poverty still plagues our nation and will continue
to do so unless nonprofits, academics, community leaders, faith groups,
and governments collaborate to their full potential.
As a nation, our success in combating hunger will hinge on the
quality of our interventions, the strength of our relationships with
grassroots organizations, our unique ability to bring together a nexus
of public and private partners to fight hunger, and strategic policy
decisions and investment from the U.S. government. Through
collaboration and strategic policy reform, we can end hunger in
America.
The Chairman. Well, thank you. I thank all of our witnesses
for sharing with us today. First off, you all finished within
the 5 minute timeframe, each one of you. That is spectacular.
But thank you for being here today and getting us off to a
great start on a conversation about a tough topic.
The chair will remind Members that they will be recognized
for questioning in order of seniority for the Members who were
here at the start of the hearing. After that Members will be
recognized in order of arrival, and I appreciate Members'
understanding that. And I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Green-Patton, thank you for being here today and coming
to D.C. to share your very inspirational story. I loved your
line about a trampoline rather than a safety net----
Ms. Green-Patton. Yes.
The Chairman.--and for sharing with us how the temporary
program weaved its way in and out of your life and helped you
get to where you are today. Can you talk to us a little bit
more about why you continue to stay involved in the Community
Kitchens and you mentioned a little bit about paying it
forward, but can you flesh that out a little bit in a couple of
minutes?
Ms. Green-Patton. Yes. I received so much from the Greater
Chicago Food Depository. It was more than just here is a fish.
Eat it. It was let me show you how to fish. Let me show you how
to cook it. Let me show you how to purchase it. Let me show you
how to share it. And so I can't help but to give back to what
they have given to me.
The program, the Chicago's Community Kitchens, is a free
program for us. They give us everything that we need to be
successful in the culinary field and even outside the culinary
field. And so I feel like I just owe, I owe them back. I am
just so grateful for everything that they have done for me, the
mentorship, the resources. They have never left me alone. And I
came out of this program over 10 years ago.
The Chairman. Well, thank you again for being here this
morning and sharing that with us. Mr. Kunz, you used the word
Navigator for your folks that you work as well. That term got a
little tainted with the Obamacare navigators. Are they the same
people? Are they different folks just using the same name or
what is the link between those two?
Mr. Kunz. Chairman Conaway, they are not necessarily the
same people. While it is certainly possible that somebody could
be doing both----
The Chairman. Okay.
Mr. Kunz.--our Navigator program is in no way associated
with the healthcare plan.
The Chairman. I got you. Mr. Kunz, can you talk to us about
your comments about the state winning with fewer errors, less
overhead, and an engagement of a group of folks who look not
just at hunger in that narrow vision but they are looking at
the needs of the entire person sitting in front of them as they
go through that and how that may improve the process, first is
with someone who is talking to them just about the nutrition
needs.
Mr. Kunz. Certainly. That is a great question. It is a
complex question. I want to make sure I get to every part of
it.
First, on the state efficiency side, as I mentioned, Texas
is big. I mean, it is really big. It is 269,000
miles2, and we have about 5.3 million Texans that
are eligible for SNAP. And so to have offices everywhere is
incredibly difficult for HHSC. What the initial savings
obviously is just that the partners are in so many locations.
Having almost 1,200 partners means that we don't need HHSC
locations all over the place.
As far as the applications themselves, applications that
are performed by individuals tend to have more errors. Member
applications have a particular program jargon that navigators
are able to assist and kind of explain. So we see fewer
applications, and the process of kicking back applications to
be corrected and then having them forwarded back and forth,
that process is a lot quicker and saves a lot of time for the
state and for the individual.
As far as the way that churches and nonprofits in the area
are able to see beyond just the benefits programs that are
available, for instance, at the congregation that I am a part
of, we have a whole set of resources and set of ways that we
address hunger and poverty in our community. And so some of
those things include things like food pantries and other food
assistance, food recovery and soup kitchens, that kind of
thing, but also access to other resources in the area. We have
a great relationship with other nonprofits in the area that are
able to address many of these needs. And so whereas for a state
office, I think that benefits are kind of the goal of that
office. When an individual goes to a nonprofit or a
congregation, they are able to see a whole wealth of options, a
whole wealth of needs and able to see a person, not an
application. And that puts things into perspective of the
entire continuum.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Webb. I am curious
on measuring things. Ms. Maehr a while ago mentioned millions
of pounds of food. That doesn't translate into meaningful
information other than it is just a lot. Can you talk to us a
little bit about the matrix that you are using that you see
that do work that is beyond just the pounds or the dollars that
are spent?
Mr. Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Domestically, we are
working on a solution to that with the USDA trying to identify
ways to better track how we are moving people out of their
current situations. Internationally, the work that we are doing
demonstrates an understanding that hunger as I mentioned in my
testimony has several layers around poverty, employment,
education, and health. So some of the things that we track
overseas are things like stunting and livelihood developments,
how many people are able to get jobs.
Those type of things are ways to track and understand how
people are moving out of their current situation. We realize
that while providing food and millions of pounds of food is
essential, it doesn't necessarily tell us the story about
whether or not we are moving people from one place to the next.
So that is what we are working on now.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. Again, I
thank the panel. The Ranking Member, 5 minutes.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleen Moriarty
with the Hunger Free Minnesota says that food banks need more
food, especially high quality, fresh produce. One of their
initiatives is to promote working with farmers directly on
limiting waste through ag surplus initiatives. In addition,
Feeding America is advocating an expansion of Federal tax
credits for farmers who donate food. Some states, like Iowa,
already do this, but there is no national tax credit.
Ms. Maehr, in Minnesota, food banks have been able to stock
their shelves with food from a variety of state-based
manufacturers like Cargill and General Mills along with grocery
chains. But there seems to be an obvious role for farmers to
help stock food banks' shelves by donating their surplus. Have
you had any experience working directly with farmers to
encourage them to give otherwise wasted commodities to your
food bank? And is there anything Congress can do to help
simplify the relationship between farmers and food banks? Also,
what can you tell me about the tax credits that are currently
available to farmers who donate their products?
Ms. Maehr. Thank you so much for the question. I will tell
you first of all that my colleagues in the State of Minnesota
are amazing, and we try every day to be more like them in
Illinois and all across this country. We do have strong
partnerships with farmers in the State of Illinois, but it is a
challenge and it is one that all of the food banks in this
country are really working towards. Frankly that is why the
food donation tax credit is so important to food banks in this
country because there are farmers that are our partners in this
work. They see the face of hunger in their own communities.
They want to be a part of the response, but when it costs them
more to donate than it does to not harvest or take that food to
a landfill, it doesn't make business sense for them.
Food banks today appreciate and frankly all of us are
striving to distribute more fresh produce. In the case of my
own food bank, of the 67 million pounds of food that we
distributed last year, 34 percent was fresh fruits and
vegetables. Farmers, the agriculture community, they are our
partners in this work, but we need a food donation tax credit
that provides them with the same support that the food industry
gets so that together we can make sure that there is fresh,
quality food available for all of the people turning to food
banks in this country.
Mr. Peterson. I assume that you probably take a deduction
for donation, in-kind donation, which you can do for a lot of
different things. I assume you can probably do that now. But
you are talking about a tax credit. Is there actually a bill or
are there specific proposals?
Ms. Maehr. The food donation tax credit currently is not
positioned in a way that most farmers in this country can take
advantage of.
Mr. Peterson. They would have to do it on their personal
return probably. But the tax credit, is there an actual
proposal, a bill that has been introduced on this tax credit?
Ms. Maehr. This is the deduction that was passed by the
House, and we are hoping that your colleagues in the Senate
will do the right thing.
Mr. Peterson. So there is a tax credit bill that passed the
House?
Ms. Maehr. It was the America Gives More Act.
Mr. Peterson. What is the tax credit? How is it structured?
Ms. Maehr. It is the tax deduction, sorry.
Mr. Peterson. It is a deduction?
Ms. Maehr. Yes.
Mr. Peterson. Off of their Schedule F?
Ms. Maehr. One moment, please.
Mr. Peterson. Us CPAs, we tend to get into those details.
Ms. Maehr. No, I appreciate that. To be honest, I am
fortunate to be a part of a great network of Feeding America,
and I have my colleague here who can give me the details on
that. But I can't answer that at the moment.
Mr. Peterson. All right. Well, I will check into it. I just
was curious about how it was structured. So thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Neugebauer
from Texas, 5 minutes.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding
this hearing, and I want to thank our panelists. It is nice to
have some folks from organizations other than the Federal
Government talking about how we address hunger in this country
and also make sure we have an efficient delivery system.
Mr. Kunz and Ms. Ender, the State of Texas being in a
Community Partner Program, what have been some of the
challenges of initiating that program?
Mr. Kunz. Thank you. Some of the challenges with initiating
the program with the start-up, we had a lot of advertising to
do in some sense, letting nonprofits know what is out there,
letting the nonprofits know how to participate and what
participation means. And in many cases, nonprofits have very
limited resources, and that has presented an initial challenge.
That is one that we have been working with nonprofits and with
the government to find ways to kind of overcome some of those
things.
I think one of the initial challenges that we faced is just
technology. Many nonprofits are behind technologically. One of
the benefits of Community Partner Program though we are able to
leverage the collective technology, expertise, and resources of
several nonprofits and congregations in many places against the
lack of technology and experience in technology in many of the
individual homes of applicants.
Ms. Ender, would you like to speak to some of the
specifics?
Ms. Ender. For our agency, it was just being trained in the
application and how to use the online application, to feel
comfortable with that, to be able to work with clients. And
frankly, our social workers, if they were here today, they
would say that this has really been a wonderful experience for
them because they want to help people. And before we became a
Community Partner and they had the training and the support
help to call on when they need it. They were having to refer
people. They took a holistic approach, and they were looking at
all the need, but they are having to send them elsewhere to do
the application. So it has been wonderful in that respect but
there was a ramping up that had to happen.
Mr. Neugebauer. One of the issues that Mr. Kunz talked
about Texas is a big state. I have a big district. Mike has a
big district. And so when you leverage and use these
partnerships, one of the concerns that I would have is what
kind of oversight is the agency able to do to make sure that
these agencies are all following the guidelines? Because one of
the things that--it is not for a lack of people signing up for
the food stamp program. I mean, one in seven Americans today
are on the Food Stamp Program, and unfortunately, we think
there are some people that are on the Food Stamp Program that
maybe have not necessarily qualified to do that because of
loopholes and so forth.
So what are you doing to make sure that our partners are
following the guidelines to make sure that people that are
actually getting on food stamps are actually qualified to do
that?
Mr. Kunz. Right. Thank you. Thank you for re-framing the
question. I tend to not see challenges. I tend to see possible
solutions, and this is one of the great things about the
Community Partner Program is that the Health and Human Services
Commission actually has a fairly reasonably rigorous process to
become a Community Partner. HHSC treats Community Partners
essentially as subcontractors, and there is an MOU that is
signed, despite the fact there is no financial relationship.
And then these partners are--we track what is happening with
the partners, applications they are filling out. Are there
common errors and are there patterns? And if there are, HHSC
follows up. The Health and Human Services Commission, along
with Texas Hunger Imitative, has been doing site visits to each
of these different partners. So we have at least offered and
are in the process of making more site visits to all of them.
And so as we go through that process we want to make sure
that they are displaying proper information, and equal
opportunity information and that all of the legal sides are
covered and that we are sharing information with everyone
involved. We provide statistical reports to the partners, and
we also are able to analyze those on our end to make sure that
there aren't errors.
Regarding enforcement, the partner never has the
opportunity or intention of determining eligibility or payment
rates. That remains entirely with the Health and Human Services
Commission and allows the government to do what the government
does really well and the partner to do what it does well.
[The information referred to is located on p. 220.]
Mr. Neugebauer. I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Scott from
Georgia, 5 minutes.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. First of all, I would like to kind of set the stage
here properly. First of all, the food banks, charitable food
giving, are wonderful and needed organizations. But there is
absolutely no way they can take the place of SNAP. We all need
to clear the air and get a good understanding of that fact.
The other fact is we cannot and we will not separate SNAP
from the farm bill. We cannot do that anymore than we can
separate wet from water. The food program is essential to the
farm bill.
Now, why do I say this? This is because of some very
serious structural inequities and dynamics in our country. Our
world, we are five percent of the world's population. Yet we
incarcerate 26 percent of the entire prison population in the
world. There are some very serious implications of that. We
have 2.2 million people in our prisons. They are parents, and
\1/2\ of those are forbidden to even get SNAP to take care of
their children. Seventy percent of the children have a parent
incarcerated. That is the number one structural dynamic.
The other? There are 1.2 million veterans with very special
needs that even charities and food banks cannot deal with.
The reason I bring this up is so that we can be clear to
know this fact. The food banks, food pantries, all of the
organizations that you represent are wonderful supplements to
this program, the SNAP program.
So, the dynamics of what we have to deal with here; I
wanted to make those two points very, very clear. There is a
lot we have to do.
August Wilson wrote a wonderful play on Broadway, and it
was called Two Trains Running. We have to have two trains
running here, the SNAP Program and each of your programs. They
have to complement one another. And if we view this this way,
we can make great progress. But if we only want one train
running, we will have train collision here.
So I wanted to ask a question, but it looks like my time is
disappearing. I may have another shot coming around. But I did
want to say that--this is serious, feeding the hungry people in
this country but we have to understand the dynamics of what is
really at the core of this problem. It can't be one or the
other. It has to be two trains running.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mrs. Walorski, the
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Nutrition, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Keleigh, I am
absolutely thrilled that you are here. This makes my entire
week. We just came back on Monday from a 2 week break, and I am
working just 2 hours from you, South Bend, Indiana, and we have
the Northern Indiana Food Bank----
Ms. Green-Patton. Yes.
Mrs. Walorski.--and I have been involved with many
different programs there. They do a fantastic job, and I am
thrilled that you are here.
Ms. Green-Patton. Thank you.
Mrs. Walorski. I am thrilled that the rest of you are here,
too, but we are all excited about Ms. Green-Patton. So I just
wanted to ask you----
Ms. Green-Patton. Yes.
Mrs. Walorski.--when you talked about--and I just, I am a
believer. You know, everybody needs help some time.
Ms. Green-Patton. Yes.
Mrs. Walorski. And you are such a strong testimony to that.
So when you went back at that 10 year mark, what made the
Community Kitchen, the Chicago Community Kitchen, different?
Why were they able to help you in that 10 year mark as opposed
to the other places you could look for help? What is it that
made that whole thing work?
Ms. Green-Patton. I believe what made it work is, again,
the mentorship, the resources, and they never left me alone. A
lot of places, they say here you go. There are the tools, but
they don't follow through. And so I have kept a great
relationship with them. They check in with me, see how I am
doing, see how my family is doing. They provided resources such
as job initiatives. Whenever employers like myself contact the
Depository for applicants, they call and they reach out and
they help you with your resume. It was just so much more. It
was almost like--it is like being a family.
Mrs. Walorski. Yes. And how large are the Community
Kitchens? How many people go through?
Ms. Green-Patton. Kate could answer that.
Ms. Maehr. So since the program began in 1998, we have
actually successfully graduated 1,200 people from the program,
and we are very proud of the fact that in the last year alone
90 percent of the graduates have jobs.
Mrs. Walorski. That is awesome. That is so great. We will
be in touch from the neighbor State of Indiana up there. But
thank you so much for what you are talking about today.
And Mr. Webb, I wanted to also thank you for being here.
And we have worked with you really on both sides. When I was
involved in feeding people in Eastern Europe and international
food organizations, we obviously knew very much about Feed the
Children and you are in my district as well----
Mr. Webb. Yes, thank you.
Mrs. Walorski.--in Elkhart, Indiana. I appreciate you being
here as well. But you guys had visited my office not too long
ago, some of your colleagues, talking about actually talking to
the USDA and being contacted by the USDA to say, ``Hey. You are
the professional food feeders. Can you come in here and just
kind of talk about standards, efficiency, ways to streamline.''
And you mentioned how sometimes it is easier to do this in
other countries than here. Can you talk about that and
elaborate on what are some of the obstacles here? And you
mentioned the one fund that, potentially, could be used for
that. But how do you see this issue of being able to come in,
even as just a third-party advisor to a gigantic organization
like the USDA and say, ``Hey, here is what best practices we
use here,'' and that kind of thing?
Mr. Webb. Thank for the question, Congresswoman. So one of
the approaches that we have is that, again, from the
international perspective, we see that there are multiple
layers to the issue. So we have developed this relationship
with USDA where we bring to them programming from the
international community that has yielded results there that we
think can be best practices here. One example of that is a care
group model that we have internally, and what that does is that
it looks to promote health in communities by first taking the
approach that there are existing assets in those communities
already and rather than us coming from Oklahoma City to Malawi
or to Tanzania or to any community in the United States, that
we need to understand the dynamics of what is taking place in
the community. So we conduct formative research. We understand
what the health indicators are in those communities. We
identify what the barriers might be to better health, to
accessing programs, and we try to understand who is overcoming
those barriers and how. Then we build out a curriculum with the
community, and we enlist a team of volunteers to educate the
community on what we are doing. So there has been a local buy-
in, and we have seen some improvement in those areas, and
programs like that are very attractive to the USDA because of
the community presence and because of the fact that we are
leveraging those existing assets.
Mrs. Walorski. Let me ask you just one--we are going to be
out of time here, but if this Committee could do one thing,
just one, if there was one thing we could do that would allow
you to better connect with our program as it is right now, what
would you suggest or what would one issue be that we could
help?
Mr. Webb. We really believe that innovation funding that
would allow organizations to work more collaboratively together
would be the solution. To address your question and Congressman
Scott's question, in New Orleans and other food deserts, we are
looking to build social enterprises that provide food access,
like a grocery store, and parts of their social service
elements around those grocery stores that address education--
the care group model I just described----
Mrs. Walorski. Sure.
Mr. Webb.--provide health. But the issue is trying to get
things off the ground takes resources. I mean, private funding
doesn't always get us to the point we can make that successful.
Mrs. Walorski. Got you. I appreciate it. Thanks, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. I
recognize Mr. McGovern, from Massachusetts, the Ranking Member
on the Nutrition Subcommittee.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for being here, and thank you for your incredible work. And Ms.
Green-Patton, I too was thrilled to have you here because you
are a success story. But it also illustrates how a lot of our
food banks and a lot of our charities have become very
innovative. It is not just about giving food. It is about
worker training. It is about getting people in the community
back on their feet. We have a great example right here in
Washington, D.C. D.C. Central Kitchen has a culinary training
program as well that has placed people in great jobs and given
people hope for the future. I think it is great to have you
here.
Everybody on the panel, I appreciate the work that you are
doing, and that you have made it clear. And I want to build on
what Mr. Scott was talking about and that is basically the
message that is loud and clear is that churches and charities
cannot do it on their own. To put it in perspective, I have a
FAQ sheet here from Bread for the World, these are 2013 figures
so it is probably a little bit different in 2015. But it says
the Federal assistance for food and nutrition programs, it was
at about $102 billion. Assistance from churches and charities
was at $5.2 billion. There is a huge gap there. So when people
say, ``Oh, we can afford to cut SNAP, and the charities and the
churches and the synagogues will all pick it up,'' that is just
not accurate.
And I want to be clear. Nobody here is arguing that we
should cut SNAP, am I correct? Mr. Webb, just to be clear, when
you are talking about your innovation funding, you are not
talking about taking that money from SNAP----
Mr. Webb. We are not.
Mr. McGovern.--and putting it into innovation funding
programs, robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Mr. Webb. We are not.
Mr. McGovern. Everybody likes to get up and talk about how
wonderful all you guys are, but then, what we have seen over
the last few years, is Congress has shirked its responsibility.
In the last few years we have cut the program by something like
$19 billion. We didn't renew the ARRA monies, the Recovery Act
monies, and then there was another cut in the farm bill. But
every single person on the benefit received a cut.
Can you explain to us, anybody here, those cuts that came
in the last 3 years, how have they impacted your clients and
the work that you do?
Ms. Maehr. I can answer. We saw more people showing up at
food pantries. The lines got longer, and the challenge is that
the lines already were long. And to your point, what we do, the
amazing food banks and food pantries and soup kitchens in this
country, we are incredible. I am the biggest advocate of the
work that we do. So it is hard for me to stand up here. I wish
we could do it all, but we can't. And my job is to be honest
about what I see in my community and what I see in this
country. And what I see are amazing charities that make
miracles happen in every neighborhood, in every county, in
every state in this country. They do it with volunteers who are
working or not working but who come every day and make magic
happen in their communities. But we cannot replace programs
like SNAP.
Mr. McGovern. And Mr. Neugebauer was concerned about people
getting on the benefit who don't deserve to be on the benefit.
I am concerned because I hear this when I am back home in
Massachusetts about the people who should be on the benefit
that are not on the benefit. So between what the Federal
Government provides and what charities provide, there is still
a gap. There are people we are not reaching. Does anyone want
to comment on that?
Mr. Webb. I would like to comment on that, and going back
to your original point, your first question also, Feed the
Children does not have the capacity to be like the Chicago Food
Depository and the food banks where we offer food on a daily
basis. But we do have truck drops that we call them where we go
into communities and we provide truckloads of food----
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Mr. Webb.--from time to time. When we have these events,
there are lines of people, 300, 400 people each time, where we
have to cut people off because of the resources that we have,
that are available. And at those events, we have opportunities
for people to sign up for SNAP because, again, some of the
people standing in line for food----
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Mr. Webb.--don't realize that they are able to receive
those resources.
So part of our process is to have SNAP, the ability for
people to sign up for SNAP when they come to these events. So
there are people who receive food but don't know they can also
get SNAP benefits.
Mr. McGovern. We are the richest country in the history of
the world, and we have tens of millions of people who are
hungry. As a Member of Congress, I am ashamed of that fact. So
I would say hunger is a political condition.
But one thing that I hope you might want to support me on
is I am trying to get the White House to do a White House
Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Hunger because to do these
kinds of collaborative efforts that you are talking about, it
is not just between USDA and the food banks and the charities.
We need agencies in the U.S. Government to better coordinate.
We need the nonprofits and the food banks to communicate better
with each other in the field.
So it would seem to me that a White House Conference,
bringing everybody in a room, locking the door and saying let's
solve this problem, would be a good thing to do. So thank you
very much for your work.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is yielded back. Mr.
LaMalfa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
panelists today. Very uplifting, the work you do firsthand and
the networks that you have in your communities as well as
reflect up in mine there in the cities in my district, our
Jesus Centers, our Rescue Missions, soup kitchens, annual
events and ongoing events that are really uplifting for
everybody to be able to take part in and remind us of the need
to have that private and public partnership to be effective.
Mr. Kunz, in your--earlier, forgive me. I was out of the
room, multiple hearings, same time for a little while, but as I
recall in your testimony you mentioned that the public
challenges with food insecurity that are multi-jurisdictional,
a lot of overlap in nature, and require a lot of collaboration
between agencies as well as the volunteer organizations and
others that are helping out. So with the Texas Hunger
Initiative, you have been pretty successful there. That has
been a good model. What made you pursue that model in Texas and
what sort of results short term are you seeing with that the
trending that you are seeing with that effort?
Mr. Kunz. Thank you for the question. Texas Hunger
Initiative, from our very inception, has seen that the local
congregations and synagogues and mosques and nonprofits were
able to see need that government agencies couldn't see. It is
not the government agencies' role to see that need, but those
local nonprofits didn't have the resources available to fund
these types of programs. Maybe in some places they did, but in
most places they did not.
Director Everett and his team really sought to combine both
of those strengths and really look at the way that we could
partner with the government from the very beginning. The
Community Partner Program is only the latest incarnation of
that. We have seen work with our child nutrition programs and
the various other public-private partnerships that we are a
part of.
Regarding the Community Partner Program, we have seen some
preliminary results when we publish our annual evaluation on
that. It is actually the property of the Health and Human
Services Commission which, if they are open to sharing that
with you, we can show you some of the short-term results. At
the end of this year we will have our third semester. I am
sorry, our third-year results, and long-term we tend to publish
on that, to make those results as helpful to everyone else
using or creating some version of this model.
One of our favorite pieces of what we do are things like
that Dallas Coalition for Hunger Solution where we have
stakeholders and players from government agencies and from all
over Texas, nonprofits, educational institutions, schools,
coming together to figure out how to address hunger and food
insecurity as well as a wealth of other issues within those
communities.
And so that is a really good example of a collaborative
approach.
Mr. LaMalfa. Certainly. Okay. So the local input from
people on the ground right there in those neighborhoods, in
those synagogues, in those churches is really valuable to have
the more effective outreach and interaction?
Mr. Kunz. Yes, not just outreach but also to come in and
give a voice. They are reaching out, yes, to the community, but
they are also able to take the information and advice and
requests from community members, and we take those back to the
Health and Human Services Commission.
Mr. LaMalfa. And execute on the need then?
Mr. Kunz. Yes. Every 2 weeks our field staff are on a call
working with Health and Human Services Commission sharing
information back and forth to create some really neat
structures and new opportunities.
Mr. LaMalfa. Interesting. Well, I find that is a pretty
fairly common theme across the boundaries. Natural Resources
Committee, local people that manage forests and try to fight
forest fire are complaining they are not getting enough local
input with Federal fire fighters or Federal Forest Service,
outside entities that don't know how to do it locally. So it is
interesting, that the local input is very important.
If other states were looking for a model on this, looking
to Texas, what would you recommend be done differently to
streamline, maybe help other states to emulate what you are
trying to do there? Is there some speed bumps that you would
advise them to go around?
Mr. Kunz. Sure. One of the speed bumps for a lot of
organizations is funding. It does require some kind of funding
in order to get these partnerships off the ground in order to
really do----
Mr. LaMalfa. Start-up funding? Not program but the start-up
type funding?
Mr. Kunz. Right. Instead of funding for the kind of thing
that Texas Hunger Initiative does, we convene all these
organizations, but that requires everything from staff to
perform the function of a backbone organization, which is the
specific collective impact term, to fund those backbone
organizations to create these partnerships and honestly to pay
for coffee at these meetings that keep people in the room and
keep them working.
[The information referred to is located on p. 221.]
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. All right. Well, my time is up. I yield
back. Thank you.
Mr. Kunz. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Ashford
from Nebraska, 5 minutes.
Mr. Ashford. Thank you. I was on the Housing Authority,
Omaha Housing Authority for quite a while.
Mr. Ashford. All the comments are great, and thank you all
for coming. Mr. Webb's comments really ring true with me, and
Mr. Scott's, David Scott's comments as well, about this fact
and that is my sense is that we do have an obligation as Mr.
Scott indicates to provide sustainable food for the people that
need it in our country. Where we are blowing it is beyond that.
The same thing with housing. When I ran the Housing
Authority, the challenge was yes, the Federal Government has a
role, of course, in helping to provide affordable housing. It
is a Federal program, 100 percent federally funded, and then
from time to time we would have our programs for self-
sufficiency eliminated or cut. So your comments about the
innovation grants really hits home.
I know in Omaha and in the 2nd Congressional District of
Nebraska, we are very innovative and doing what you are doing
in Texas. I am not going to claim better than Texas because
that gets into a thing, but basically, we are working on
developing urban farms, very aggressively doing that. We have a
culinary institute at the Metropolitan Community College in our
area that is second to none. And all this is starting to
evolve. But as was the case at the Housing Authority, when we
tried to encourage people to get off of the need for public
housing, we were always stuck with the fact that the Federal
program either wasn't funded properly or to your point, and
more importantly, is that the states or the localities were not
given the ability through these sort of innovation grants
concept to help do it. And to the point that was made earlier,
you can't do it. You are not going to be able to do everything
by yourself through raising money through nonprofits.
So my questions is, and this has really struck a chord with
me. Could you just comment a little further on how these
innovation grants would work? I think you are spot on and it
would make a huge difference.
Mr. Webb. Yes. Thank you for the question. We believe the
innovation grants would spur collaborating because the
conversation needs to be expanded beyond just hunger because we
need to understand that hunger is one of the issues, but there
are underlying factors as well. So when we are looking at these
solutions, it needs to be a broad-based approach to the
solution that understands that poverty is a component,
education is a component, employment is a component, and
bringing these collaborative folks to the table to take their
piece of the issue in a way that gives them flexibility to test
new ideas is the approach that we are suggesting. And one of
the things that we have seen in other agencies that have social
innovation funding is it allows folks to contribute their own
resources, whether that is financial, whether that is human
capital, to come up with a solution. And as long as that
barriers for entrance to participate in those invocation funds
aren't cost prohibitive because a smaller organization that
might have a fantastic idea might not have a million dollars to
put to a one-to-one match, then we would see a lot more
organizations that have the ability to get in there and----
Mr. Ashford. So it is more efficient use of those dollars.
Mr. Webb. Exactly.
Mr. Ashford. And it seems to me it would be. At the Housing
Authority we did urban farming. We did some of that, and this
was a little bit ago. So it has come a long way in the last 10
years. But I absolutely agree with you. If the Federal
Government through direct support can provide some of the basic
needs, housing and food--you wanted to say something?
Ms. Maehr. Well, if I may, there are some successes that we
should celebrate. I believe the food banks and the----
Mr. Ashford. Oh, sure.
Ms. Maehr.--agencies are the USDA's largest partner.
Mr. Ashford. Sure.
Ms. Maehr. And I will tell you that there is actually a
fair amount of innovation and partnership that happens every
day in my own community. We regularly meet with representatives
from USDA, and with other organizations. We regularly talk
about what works, and we see that replicated. And, if there are
opportunities to invest more deeply in hunger relief, I am
certainly supportive of that. But I will tell you that if we
can keep the Federal nutrition programs strong, then the
dollars that we get from private donations can actually help us
support those innovative efforts. But right now so many of us
are having to buy additional food to ensure that people have
food to eat as food programs such as SNAP goes through cuts.
And so I would just say innovation is happening. There is
always more that can happen, but there is a lot of awesome
stuff that is happening in communities.
Mr. Ashford. I think there is--and my time is up--awesome
stuff is happening. But I also agree with Mr. Webb that there
is much more that should be done as well.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Yoho
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I
appreciate your family being here. And Ms. Maehr, I appreciate
your passion. When you are describing how the communities come
out and the different organizations come out, that is what I
see in our area. I represent Florida's 3rd Congressional
District, large, rural, agricultural area with hubs of
innovation around there. If I were to ask, Mr. Chairman, I
don't know if this is acceptable, but if I were to ask in here
how many people have ever been on food assistance or SNAP in
this room, show your hands if you are not embarrassed to. I
have, too. And a lot of people say, ``Well, how could you have
been on that? You are a U.S. Congressman.'' I was young once. I
just turned 60. And I understand the importance of that, and I
don't know anybody in the country, I don't care if they are the
most conservative or the most liberal, that is not willing to
help somebody in need. And so these programs, when we see the
communities coming together, solving a problem locally, that is
the best solution we can have, and we need to bolster that with
the charitable contributions and things like that and allow
people to do that. And the more government interferes and takes
that away, it would be a lot worse.
In our area we visited several food banks from the large
one that feeds thousands and thousands of people to one that is
out in the rural country. And I found it interesting because
the one was run at a church. To be able to get food, you could
come twice a month but you had to show an ID, you had to prove
that you lived where you live with an electric bill or a water
bill or something like that. It actually wasn't a water bill.
But you had to prove residence before you could even get in
there and leave with the food. And so I see a dichotomy in an
urban area versus a rural area.
In your experience, what do you see the management in a
larger area, like in an urban area, how they distribute food
and how they acquire their food versus in the smaller rural
areas? Is there pretty much the same or what is your experience
on that?
Ms. Maehr. As I said, we have more than 200 food banks that
make up the Feeding America network, and I always joke that if
you have seen one food bank, you have seen one food bank. We
all operate a little bit differently. But we do have some
things that unite us. And one of the things is an adherence to
quality, to food safety standards. We have rigorous guidelines
that ensure that all of the food banks in our network are
operating at the highest operational practice level possible,
not just for charitable organizations but for the food
industry. So that includes regularly having outside inspections
from third-party auditors.
And so making sure that we are adhering to the best
practices for the food industry as a whole. Food banks are
fortunate that we have such a strong partnership with the food
industry, and that makes that possible.
So number one, it is making sure that the food is safe. It
is also making sure that we treat clients with dignity and with
respect. That happens a thousand different ways. But it is
always making sure that our partners have the tools that they
need, that we are challenging ourselves to be the best
organizations that we can possibly be so that when a family or
an individual shows up at that food pantry, they are treated
with respect. They get the food that they need, and that food
is the highest quality food possible so that they can, as
Keleigh said, get on that trampoline that takes them back into
being successful.
Mr. Yoho. I agree 100 percent with you, and I appreciate
you and your compassion. I think that is something that shows
very, very clearly.
I am running out of time here. What I would like to
concentrate on is to hear from you how we can make these
programs better because in our area, they got into a situation
where one of the larger contractors to the USDA that was
getting the food to give out, there was a squabble because they
contract with smaller companies, and we have one in our
district that I said feeds thousands and thousands of people.
They lost that contract because a new person came over and took
over the USDA contract, and this new company that came out was
promoting how much food they were giving out. But what they
were doing is they were going into homeless shelters giving out
frozen chickens, multiple frozen chickens to people that don't
have refrigeration. And that is a waste of the taxpayers'
money.
And so I want to hear from you guys whether you submit it
to this agency or I will submit questions to you, and I would
love to hear back from you how we make the process more
efficient, more streamlined so that the American people get the
bang for their buck, giving money to programs like this, and we
bolster the charitable but with what you do, we get the best
results we can. And the other thing we want to focus on,
getting people in, get them up, and get them out and self-
sufficient. Thank you for your time.
Ms. Maehr. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I am now pleased
to recognize the gentlelady from New Mexico for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank the panel for being here today, and I also want to
particularly thank Ms. Ender. I started my career serving
seniors. So I appreciate the work that you do and that of the
whole panel very much. And in fact, I did consumer protection
work, and that landed me a terrific job running the State Unit
on Aging which then became--I was the first Secretary of Aging
and Long-Term Care. And in the 1990s, I don't need the USDA
information to tell me that SNAP's reach to senior households,
even households for adults with disabilities, is lower than it
should be and that you are reaching less than \1/3\. They say
\1/3\. In states like New Mexico, I need to look at that data
again, but I would bet it is even lower than that. And yet,
with SNAP we are reaching more than 80 percent of other
households that would be eligible. And for a state that is the
hungriest state in terms of children in the nation, that is
critically important, making sure that we reach everyone.
I also really appreciate that we have made the case that
nutrition is a key factor in so many issues that are not only
about respect and dignity and independence and health, but they
save this country incredible resources. And we talked about
diabetes and mitigation and elimination and management, and we
talk about other chronic diseases and osteoporosis. But we
really don't even talk about dementia which can be reversed
with appropriate nutrition, for some types that are related to
a Vitamin B deficiency and related nutritional deficiencies.
And given that we really worry about long-term care costs, and
we should, this is a way that really can assist us to manage
huge healthcare costs in the future, in addition to making sure
that we are feeding this population.
And my last point about the relevancy and the value and the
importance of SNAP benefits for this population is in the
context of cuts and limited resources, in the private sector
and the public sector. We also should know that home delivered
meals, both privately and through the Older Americans Act, have
been reduced. And so your weekend meals and your evening meals
and home-delivered meals are really gone. In my state, I am
happy if I can get the agency to commit that they will do five
meals, one a day, for individuals who aren't coming to a
congregant center, and even for those, there are waiting lists.
And we don't care about breakfast apparently or dinner, and we
aren't caring about weekends. And the last point, back to
health, is you can't take half your medications if you are not
getting the right food and nutrition. So the whole thing, we
have to think about it in that context.
So what can we do specifically in SNAP to make sure two
things: first, that this population is clearly aware and that
all of our partners are helping folks with this eligibility
process? And then second, that we really talk more candidly
about the fact that seniors receive less than \1/2\ the typical
benefit. And I can remember in the 1990s a poor senior citizen
with one meal a day, through the Older Americans Act services,
and that is not every senior in your community or state, got a
$10 benefit. And I had to really make them go through the hoops
to get that $10 benefit. But $10 was maybe a breakfast for the
week. And so I was all about making sure that they did it.
So I want to really think hard about making sure that we
create an environment for our partners, including the states
and USDA, to think better and harder about ways to reach this
population.
Ms. Ender. I think you have really hit on the big issue
that we have. There are a lot of seniors that are isolated.
They are in their homes. They are not plugged into networks.
They are not going to the senior centers and getting congregate
meals.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. There may not even be a senior center in
their community.
Ms. Ender. Right. There might not be. But even if there are
lots of services in the community, they are not accessing it
for a myriad of reasons. They are isolated and in their home.
And that is a huge challenge. If they are out and about and
they are plugged into networks and all, then they may know
about some of these.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Is there a public health model here that
maybe would work so that for example as we are doing door to
door vaccinations and WIC and those kinds of programs that we
incentivize those programs to reach out and make sure they are
connecting populations to a SNAP benefit because it is all
related?
Ms. Ender. I think we need to think more and more about: if
something works with children, does it work with older adults,
and vice versa?
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Grandparents raising grandchildren.
Ms. Ender. If it is working with older adults, could it
work with children? Because, there are some similarities there
with delivering services and all. I think we need to think that
way a little more.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. We will
have an opportunity for a second round or if Mr. Webb, you can
submit your answer in writing. But to be respectful for the
other Members, we will stick to the time limit.
Mr. Newhouse, 5 minutes.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here and joining the conversation. It is very important.
I had the pleasure and the experience of when I was Director of
Agriculture in our state, the State of Washington, we had the
responsibility for the emergency food programs. So I know
firsthand the value of everything that all of you have talked
about, what you do. We should be very proud of the
accomplishments, certainly aware of the challenges that we have
and a lot of work to do. Being a farmer also, I worked very
hard to try to bond that relationship between the people that
produce the food and those that need the food, and so we have a
lot of great things going. I know we do in the State of
Washington, and I hear similar things going on around the
country.
So I have just got one simple question, and I would like
each of you, if you have a response, to answer, and it has do
with government. In working with government, how does it
benefit what you are trying to accomplish in your mission, and
what do you see are things that government is impeding--holding
you back from accomplishing what you would like to accomplish?
Mr. Webb. So if I can take that one, one of the issues--
Feed the Children has been 99 percent privately funded since
our inception. That comes from a mindset where we were looking
more singularly focused about our ability to solve the issues
alone. We have come to a place where we realize that is not the
case. So we see the value of supplemental resources, like
government funding, to help us to move the needle and encourage
and incentivize the collaboration we described.
The other thing the government funding would allow us to
do, we have talked about innovation, but the next step beyond
innovation is finding that sustainable domestic programming
that one of the models we are talking about setting up is a
social enterprise so that with the government funding would be
sort of up-front capital that would create this model that has
a sustainable approach where after we have built this system
that is a credible business that can stand on its own, the need
for government assistance, the need for private resources
doesn't need to be used in those type of situations.
So having government funding to support that collaboration,
to allow us some startup funding to create the innovative
models and create these long-term sustainable solutions is
where government funding could be most impactful.
Ms. Maehr. I would actually say that, as I said in my
remarks, it is a partnership. And it is not so much that I want
the investment in my organization. Our organization is largely
privately funded.
Where I really need government to invest is in programs
like SNAP, WIC, TEFAP, and CASFP and Summer Meals to make sure
that those programs are strong for the people who need them
when they turn to them.
We love having that partnership, and together we can make
sure that people in our community have the food that they need
to eat.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you.
Mr. Kunz. I am so thankful that I am physically in between
the two of these presenters this morning because I also want to
point out that we would absolutely affirm the value and
efficacy of SNAP. We also believe the data shows that expanding
these public-private partnerships reduces the burden on
government, and it increases efficiencies in the program. So
the long-term effects of these public-private partnerships of
keeping these programs strong and enabling us to do these
partnerships better is going to facilitate a trampoline effect
and it both reduces the burden on the government and enables
nonprofits to leverage the funds that we have and the funds
that we are asking for to do this better.
Mr. Newhouse. Absolutely.
Ms. Ender. And I would say to not forget that you can have
a lot of wonderful organizations out there in the community
that are doing wonderful things. You can have a lot of
wonderful volunteers out in the community doing wonderful
things. But as Dustin said earlier, you do have to have some
funds to have someone that helps coordinate and pull everything
together. When you have coalitions in the community that are
working together, and we are all in the trenches, and we are
working hard and it is hard sometimes to step back and to meet.
We said there are a lot of innovative things going on and there
are. But it takes stepping back and building coalitions and
taking a little time to put your heads together. And to do
that, you need a little help and coordination sometimes. And I
would say that sometimes maybe government forgets that
coordination part.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
Ms. Ender. They are really good about thinking about the
services needed but maybe forget about the needs for
coordination.
Mr. Newhouse. I see my time is just about to expire, but--
--
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Costa,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I have
been in another committee and meeting concurrently. So I have
had to go back and forth. But I have picked up snippets of the
testimony of our witnesses here, and you, basically, have
explained to Members of the Committee the importance of this
public-private partnership and the relationship and the overall
efforts, challenges and the demands. In many areas of the
country, the need exceeds the available resources to provide
the support for those people who are living in conditions of
poverty and extreme poverty. I don't think I have to tell any
of you about the horrific drought that we are facing in
California. And I represent an area, along with some other
colleagues, where it is ground zero. And this drought has
resulted in hundreds of thousands of acres, estimated a million
acres, of land out of 6 million acres in California that will
be fallow this year as a result of the drought.
Now, the impacts to the farmers are very, very devastating.
The impacts to the farm workers are in some cases catastrophic,
and to the farm communities, the school districts and the like.
Let me give you a snapshot of the poverty that exists and
the impacts of the food bank in my district, the 16th
Congressional District in Fresno, Madera, and Merced. The
community food bank continues to see high levels of families
struggling to recover in the wake of the recession, but the
drought obviously has compounded it: 280,000 individuals per
month are being provided food from the Fresno Community Food
Bank; 90,000 of those 280,000 monthly are children who are
being reached. And only 60 percent of the efforts of the food
bank are providing food for families in the five-county areas.
SNAP therefore is an important part of keeping folks with
necessary food.
Over 522,000 families have benefited from the SNAP program
in the area. So when you have that kind of level of 40 percent
and 50 percent unemployment, and these are people who I have
known all my life, some of the hardest-working people you will
ever meet, who cannot work today because there is no water for
them to work on the farms. It is really very, very devastating.
And let's just be frank. A number of these people can't
benefit from the SNAP programs because they are not here with
legal documents. So the community food banks play a critical
role for those individuals. And the churches and the other
organizations are very critical, the volunteer organizations as
some of you represent. I was just at an annual banquet for this
food bank that I talked about 2 weeks ago run by Andy Souza.
And they raised a lot of money. This was all private-sector
money, big fundraiser, 600 people there, a lot of the ag
organizations, big sponsors, to supplement the TEFAP program
that provides funding for the community food banks because it
is not enough. That is how big the problem is.
So let me just close by making some observations. States
have few options to achieve cuts outside the benefit cuts
because 90 percent of program expenditures go for SNAP. If the
cuts from SNAP come solely from the benefit cuts, states would
have to cut an average of $55 per person, not a household, to
each of these affected. For a family of four, this would mean
over $200 a month. Seventy percent of the SNAP participants are
of families with children. More than \1/4\ are in households
that include senior citizens or people with disabilities.
Finally, the SNAP program, supplemented with the community
food banks and the private-sector involvement that you folks
represent, are all needed. They are all needed. And the SNAP
program works so that when you have greater times of economic
uncertainty and recession, it expands and it contracts when
things get better. And hopefully it will rain. We are praying
for rain in California, and snow. I don't know if any of you
have any observations you would like to make on my comments?
Ms. Maehr. I would and just that we feel that beyond
California the price of fresh produce, it is a burden for
families who are struggling. It is also a burden for food banks
like mine that now purchase 34 percent of our food. And so we
pay more. The families we serve pay more. It also underscores
why it is so important for us to have the dollars for the TEFAP
programs, storage and distribution. It costs a lot of money to
make sure that people have food in our community.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Allen,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Green-Patton, I
want to tell you that you are a hero of mine.
Ms. Green-Patton. Thank you.
Mr. Allen. And I will think that my time in Congress will
be successful when everyone has the opportunity that you have
had to succeed.
Ms. Green-Patton. Thank you.
Mr. Allen. And that is what we want in America. And thank
you for your testimony. I hope that you will continue to give
that testimony throughout this land to encourage others to seek
the help and counsel and advice and to do the hard work it
takes to do, which you have accomplished, because I know it was
difficult.
I have worked in many charitable organizations. I had the
privilege to employ a lot of folks and help them, and that is
one of the greatest privileges of my life. Growing up in
Augusta, Georgia, we have had our share of issues as far as a
community. But the food bank is something that everybody can
support and do everything they can to help. Those folks do
their work. And I have also had the privilege of serving others
down at our Thanksgiving dinner, and that is always a privilege
to talk with folks who need hope. And again, the thing I love
about this testimony that you are all doing today is that I
find that in this country that folks who serve are so full of
joy. I mean the true joy is in serving. And again, that is a
message that I would like for every American to hear.
I want to make sure as far as this body, this Congress, is
there anything that we are doing that is restricting what you
are doing out there? And how could you help us fix it? And I
will just open that up to the panel. Are we causing any
problems for you? You better speak now or forever hold your
peace. Anything you would like to share?
Mr. Webb. I will share an experience. One of the issues
that we were having was with demonstration grants that are
available that often have to go through states, and it makes it
difficult to apply for nonprofits. Depending on the political
will in your state, even though you may have a very credible
program that you think would demonstrate results, it really is
dependent upon the will of the state to get those----
Mr. Allen. Right.
Mr. Webb.--to get that.
Mr. Allen. So there needs to be a uniformity between the
states?
Mr. Webb. Or to be allowed to go to the nonprofits on the
ground, one of those. But the programs are at the risk of the
political will of the state.
Mr. Allen. Okay. About what percent in this country are we
providing as far as charitable versus government food? Are
there any statistics as far as like SNAP program provides a
certain percentage of food versus charitable contributions?
Ms. Maehr. Of the country?
Mr. Webb. That is something I can--we don't have the----
Mr. Allen. Okay. You----
Mr. Webb.--numbers for it. Can I----
Mr. Allen. Yes, that would be good, useful information as
far as providing for these private-public partnerships is,
okay, what is expected of us and what is expected of others.
Mr. Webb. What I can say, Congressman, one quick comment
here----
Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Webb.--is that Feed the Children last summer offered
the Summer Foods and Service Program with the USDA, and we were
able to provide 200,000 meals in Oklahoma over the summer.
Mr. Allen. Okay.
Mr. Webb. And 9,000 of those meals were covered by Federal
resources.
Mr. Allen. Okay.
Mr. Webb. The rest of the meals were covered through
privately funded sources.
Ms. Ender. I also would say that I don't know that you can
ever get really good figures on that because certainly large
efforts, large community efforts are going to have figures. But
you have so many small groups, small churches and nonprofits
that are doing a little something that I don't know that you
could ever really get accurate figures?
Mr. Allen. Right. Well, in other words on the SNAP program,
in 2014, we fed about 46.5 million people which was about $418
per person per day. Do you all keep any statistics like that?
Mr. Kunz. We in Texas have a whole variety of statistics we
would love to share with your office. I will say that Craig
Gundersen is one of the leading experts in this field, and he
estimates about three percent come from charitable----
Mr. Allen. Food from----
Mr. Kunz.--of the total come from charitable resources.
[The information referred to is located on p. 221.]
Mr. Allen. Okay. All right. Great. Well, again, thank you
so much for what you do. It has been a privilege to be here
with you today. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Aguilar, 5 minutes.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
panelists for the discussion. I think the overall theme that I
am hearing is about partnerships and collaboration and how it
really does take everybody at the table, including us, to play
a role in that.
Ms. Maehr, in your testimony you mention the gap between
SNAP enrollment and SNAP eligibility. In your experience, can
you dig a little bit deeper on what are some of the factors
that lead to that low enrollment, especially in African-
American and Latino areas and communities? And as a follow-up,
are there cultural barriers where you think we can work
collaboratively together with some of our community groups in
order to make it happen?
Ms. Maehr. Thank you. I am so glad you asked that question,
particularly building on the last question. The challenge that
we see so much is at the state level. In the State of Illinois
we have an 18 page long SNAP application. And I always joke
with people, I know that sometimes it is popular for folks to
talk about walking in the shoes of a SNAP recipient by trying
to shop on the average benefit a day. I actually encourage all
of you to fill out your state's SNAP application.
In my case, in the State of Illinois, it is incredibly
complex, and it is a daunting challenge particularly the type
is very small. So if you have any sort of eyesight challenge,
if English is not your first language, if you aren't well-
versed in a whole slate of bureaucratic terms, it is very
complicated to understand. Also, as Ms. Green-Patton testified,
if you have a job, it is very difficult to apply for SNAP
benefits because you have to take a day off of your job. We
have made it very complicated for people to get this benefit.
Additionally, for people who are not native English speakers in
the Latino community, there is an additional set of challenges.
There is a lot of concern. It is why we see SNAP outreach with
private partners to be an incredibly effective tool.
There are people who very understandably don't have good
feelings about interfacing with the Illinois Department of
Human Services. It is often a bureaucratic nightmare.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. I appreciate that. Are we doing
enough? And I guess this could go for the entire panel. Are we
doing enough SNAP outreach in those under-served communities?
If we can start with you and kind of work our way back?
Ms. Maehr. I think there is certainly more that we need to
do. We do it through a network of volunteers as well as paid
staff. We are stretched incredibly thin, and we know that there
are still people who are eligible in our community that we are
not reaching. And so there is a lot more that we can do to
connect people to SNAP.
Ms. Green-Patton. Just at my church alone where we offer
free hot meals to people a couple times a month, I have people
asking for food before they leave. And so it makes me wonder,
how far are we able to reach? And so I don't know if it is a
monetary thing. I don't know. I am just not sure. I know that
we have volunteers, and they can only do so much. But it seems
like we can do a little bit more to make sure everyone is
touched.
Mr. Kunz. I just want to first clarify, my organization,
the partners we work with, we don't necessarily do SNAP
outreach. We are not trying to increase SNAP rolls. We are
really focused on access. That is part of the genius of the
Community Partner Program is that in these areas, in these
neighborhoods, when an organization sees the need, culturally
and neighborhood-appropriate organizations do the application
and do the assistance and are able to overcome a lot of those
barriers and to provide, like I said, access which is our most
crucial issue.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Ms. Ender. Well, we would like to see more seniors on SNAP
because they are under-served by the program. And so we are a
part of the Hunger Coalition, and we are actively out in the
community trying to educate people that there is a program that
can help them if they have that need.
I will say that since we have been a Community Partner,
when we first started out, we would assist three people a week,
and now we are to three people a day. And so we are very
excited about that and encouraged because we have a lot of
hungry seniors out there in the community. And yes, we would
very much like to enroll more of them.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Mr. Webb. And like Dustin said, my organization doesn't
specifically do SNAP outreach, but when we have events where we
provide food and essentials to individuals, we have opportunity
for people to sign up for SNAP there. And we consistently see
people still signing up. And one of the approaches that we are
hoping to use internationally and want to bring domestically is
a care group model I described earlier where we have volunteers
who are going door to door and into individuals' homes and
educating them with curriculum. The SNAP outreach and
enrollment process could be something that those volunteers are
trained to do in-home. But it can't solely rest on the
volunteers, but it could be one option.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Benishek, 5 minutes.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for being
here today. I think you reinforce my own personal thought about
the private sector and the public-private partnerships. It just
seems to me that visiting those kind of folks in my district,
which I just got back from, they do things so much more
efficiently than the state bureaucracy which Ms. Maehr sort of
explained to us how it is in Illinois. I got to meet, this past
week, several people in jobs programs and young people getting
skills programs. And so I really appreciate the fact that you
guys are promoting these. That is really where the answer is,
is to have some government funding for you guys because you
don't have that much overhead. You know who the people are that
need the help, and you get it to them. So I just want to say
thank you for that.
Ms. Green-Patton, I had a couple questions for you because
you mentioned a couple things about how this communication
helped you find a job. And I have a concern about people who
are on the SNAP program and then they are concerned about
getting a job and then they might not be eligible for the SNAP
and they end up being worse off working than they were, can you
talk about that a little bit? I know the Community Kitchens
helped you out. Is that a real issue, that people have some
barriers to getting a job because they don't have a way of
working and getting the SNAP? Tell me more about that.
Ms. Green-Patton. Well, I can only speak for my experience,
but just like with any job, you start a job and some jobs, they
don't allow you to take off for the first year or for the first
90 days. And so when you are finally blessed to receive a job
and you have to go and fill out, like Kate said, that 18 page
application and then you have to go down to the office and stay
there all day long until you are seen or until your
appointment, and then you have to come back because there are
some more forms needed that you didn't know about before, it is
almost discouraging for people to apply for the benefits, I
feel.
Mr. Benishek. Yes. Mr. Kunz, it seems like it is working
better in Texas than it is in Illinois. Would you say that from
what you are seeing? From what I understood, it was easier in
Texas. Is that right?
Mr. Kunz. I certainly think so. I think one thing is we
have a very short wait time for navigators to help with the
application, and a Community Partner can be open at any time,
can be open in the evenings and on weekends, can be at
community events as well as a place that is open during the day
for those that work evenings.
Mr. Benishek. That process is not available in Illinois, is
that right, Ms. Maehr?
Ms. Maehr. That is right, and that is one of the challenges
just in general is that there are 50 states, and SNAP is
administered 50 different ways. And there are some states that
do an amazing job, and there are some states frankly that
don't.
Ms. Ender. I think the application, there are some positive
things happening in Texas, but we have issues with the
application, too. Improvements have been made, by the way. So
it is a lot better than it was but we do have problems with the
application. It is very confusing.
And yet, there is a certain amount of, ``Hey, there is a
certain amount of information that has to be there.'' That is
the reality.
Mr. Webb. And if I could talk to the workforce development
component you were mentioning earlier, one of the things that
we are doing with Feed the Children is we have built a center
to identify bright spots that are happening in communities,
programs that are demonstrating measurable impact and just need
some support to be scaled up. And one of the communities we
worked in in New Orleans, we have seen a program similar to the
model that you have described called Liberty's Kitchen where
they work with at-risk or low-opportunity youth to provide them
with job training and work development resources. And then they
have a network of partners who try to place them in jobs
because of the relationships they are building. So they are
moving them through the pipeline and improving their situation
beyond just the assistance----
Mr. Benishek. Oh, no, you are right. I just met in Michigan
with Experience Works. They work with the Michigan Employment
Agency, and they get older folks into some nonprofit jobs. And
then they transition to another job from there. And that was a
program that was working well. I met several members of the
program that found work and then transferred out. That is a key
component of what we are doing here.
I am trying to figure out how to make this SNAP and
transition back into the workplace an easier thing. I am out of
time, but thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate
it, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mrs. Bustos
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am from Illinois,
so I want to say welcome to a couple of our panelists here from
Illinois. I hope your trip to D.C. is going well.
And Ms. Maehr, your invitation for those of us sitting
around the table here to fill out an application is an
intriguing one. The fact that I have 53 year old eyes and small
print is a bother to me now. It was an interesting thing to
point out. And the fact that it is 18 pages long, unbelievable.
And so I would like to just get a feeling for that.
You mentioned there are 50 different ways to apply for
benefits. I am wondering, is Illinois looking at some of these
best practices, and is there anything that we can do on a
Federal level to, perhaps through a pilot program or anything
else, to figure out what is working well. If it is Texas that
is the role model or if it is some other state. I would like to
make sure that we are doing it right at least in the State of
Illinois and wonder how we can play a part in that.
Ms. Maehr. Me, too. I think that one of the challenges that
frankly all states face but in particular we face in the State
of Illinois is that there is a hesitation and a reluctance to
invest in some of the systems that make it possible for public,
for government to be efficient. And so we have an antiquated
system. We have a paper-based system in Illinois.
And so everything is based on people filling out paper
applications, and it takes time. Applications get lost. And
yet, when you talk to most people about do they want to invest
in buying computer and database systems for state government,
you don't get a lot of enthusiasm for that idea, particularly
in a state that has had some of the challenges that we have had
in Illinois.
And yet, at the same time, I look at what modern commerce
can do, and we can move food and we can move products around
the world in a matter of hours. And it is endlessly frustrating
to me that we cannot figure out a way to deliver the same
quality of service efficiently in the public sector. We strive
to do that. We certainly in the State of Illinois look at other
states that are models, but we know we have a long way to go.
Mrs. Bustos. Who is doing it right, and what can we learn
from who is doing it right? And anybody can answer that. There
has to be a role model state or community or someplace where we
can say this is what we should be doing and somehow systemize
it so everybody can get this right. Eliminate waste or
redundancy or whatever else is clogging up the efficiency of
the system and making sure that hungry people don't go hungry.
Mr. Kunz. Ms. Bustos, I don't want to say that Texas is
doing it right. It is a bold statement. I want to say we are
doing it well, and we are getting better at it. I think that we
are creating a model for public-private partnership that is
incredibly effective and creates a great exchange between the
private sector and the public sector and creates a lot of
information. I think that we are creating a great model, and I
also know that we have an annual summit coming up, and you are
invited to come in and learn about how this works, everybody on
the ground, and with our legislators.
[The information referred to is located on p. 222.]
Mr. Webb. And then to go back to an earlier comment that we
made around the innovation funding that would allow
organizations to better share best practices, the fact that we
have the conversation about not being able to identify what
those are would be strengthened by the ability to come together
in a forum like is being described to be able to share that
among the community of practice.
Ms. Maehr. And I will just say, in Illinois, I don't want
us to be battered too much. We do have a new governor who has
been very supportive of all of the food banks in the State of
Illinois, and we are looking at Texas and we are talking to the
governor and his team about what can we learn and what can we
do in the State of Illinois to streamline and make our system
entirely more efficient.
Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thanks to all the panelists, and I
yield back the remainder of my time.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you. Mr.
Emmer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Emmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks again to the
panel. Sorry I had to come in just a little bit late, but I
haven't missed anything since. And I want to thank you not only
for being here but for your candor. Sometimes we tend to think,
at least in my experience starting at a state level, that just
because we have been doing something a certain way means that
we have to keep doing it that way. We might add to it, but we
keep doing it. You and your experience, your testimony here
today proves otherwise. I understand that everybody is taking a
very clear approach that you want to be an addition to SNAP
benefits. But I will tell you, my coming here today wasn't
about that. I want to know more about what are successful
programs that are community based from the ground up instead of
from the top down.
Personally, working with faith communities, working with
interested individuals in my home state, frankly doing it
myself, I find that the connection with the individual in need
which is some of the personal experience we have heard today is
better for both of the individuals involved. Somebody said
years ago--it is probably already been stated here today--that
a hand up is much better than a hand out. That being said, I
also get a little nervous when I hear the testimony today
because to be critical, there were questions that were asked
earlier, please tell us what the government structure is doing
to restrict your ability, and everybody sat at the table and
was frozen. And I do appreciate you trying to be very
statesmanlike in the answers. But, going forward, people get a
little territorial, and people worry about you have to work
with these folks every day and you need the partnerships. You
don't want to create any unnecessary tension. But we need to
know what those potential obstacles and difficulties are
because frankly the future of the system is going to be more
based on you and your experiences on the ground and the
innovation that you are looking to create. That is what people
up on this side of the dais need to hear about and understand
in order to make those votes that are so important.
So even though I hate the statements, I just made one, and
I want you to understand that I am just learning as one of the
new people here. Now the bad news about us new people is that
we have a lot to learn. The good news is that we don't know
everything yet. So we can still learn.
Mr. Webb, if I could, you talked about your
recommendations, and you gave a list of three. It struck me,
and I just had a question about: can you tell us how much is
provided from one source versus from another source? I want to
talk about measurements and impacts. Can you tell me how you
are measuring the impact, and if others want to add to this
because I want to know how I can quantify it when I have to
make policy decisions?
Mr. Webb. So domestically?
Mr. Emmer. Yes.
Mr. Webb. At this point domestically our measurement is
around number of meals served, amount of poundage of food,
millions of pounds of food distributed, those type of pieces,
and we are building research now to identify some of the health
implications and moving people into different situations. But
right now it is based on meals served and millions of pounds
that is distributed. And in our opinion, there is a difference
in what takes place internationally because we actually measure
how we are moving people from one situation to the next. If I
could use an analogy, it would be almost like someone trying to
get healthier and measuring the amount of weight they can lift.
Yes, it may be one component of it, but you need to maybe
measure BMI, cholesterol, those sort of things to make an
informed decision about how you are moving.
Mr. Emmer. And I guess that is where I was coming from. One
side is production, how much you are producing, how much you
are providing. But the other one is results which is Ms. Green-
Patton when you talk about results.
Ms. Maehr. You have raised an incredibly important point in
that more of us--we need to think more about the health of the
people that we are serving. And this idea, from our
perspective, food is medicine, and it is not just about moving
pounds. It is not just about the through-put, but it is also
thinking about the health impact. And so food banks all across
this country are engaged in partnerships with health systems,
with hospitals, and we are measuring the health----
Mr. Emmer. I am running out of time, so I just want to say
if you could get us that information----
Ms. Maehr. Absolutely.
Mr. Emmer.--that would be very helpful for somebody like
me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Scott wanted one more round? David?
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you. I just want to ask
you. I was listening to Bill O'Reilly last night on Fox News,
and he had a veteran on. One of the areas that I work very hard
on is with our veterans. And as I mentioned earlier we have one
million that we know about, veterans, that we can find that are
on SNAP.
In that conversation last night, Bill O'Reilly was talking
about the suicide rate of our veterans. Ask him about that. And
the point he said was the fact that out of desperation, this
guy had tried suicide. And it was very profound to me when Bill
asked him the question, why did you want to take your own life?
And he said because after going and fighting for my country, I
come back home. I can't keep a job. I can't have a job. I can't
even put food on the table for my family.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you putting
this hearing on. This is one of the most important hearings
that we could have. We can survive without a lot of things, a
car, you name it. The one thing we cannot survive without is
food. And so when our soldiers are going without food, that
bothers me as it does I am sure everybody sitting in this room.
We are not doing enough.
I want to ask you, each of you, in your food banks, do you
have a special effort, do you concentrate, is there anything
that you all are doing to get at this most-needed target? We on
the Federal side are doing things but not enough when you hear
the kind of conversation that was on Bill O'Reilly last night.
Could you tell me, Ms. Maehr----
Ms. Maehr. Absolutely.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia.--what you all are doing to
reach our veterans?
Ms. Maehr. Absolutely. So 18 percent of the households that
get food from the Greater Chicago Food Depository have either
an active or a former member of the military services.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes. Did you say 18 percent?
Ms. Maehr. Eighteen percent. And for us, it was so
troubling that it really spurred us into action on two fronts.
First was targeting our SNAP outreach specifically to veterans
and working in partnership with organizations that specifically
address the needs of veterans, both those who are homeless as
well as those who are not homeless. It also spurred us to open
two food pantries operating inside of the two VA hospitals in
our community. And tomorrow morning if you were to happen to go
to the VA center just outside the City of Chicago, you would
see close to 300 men and women who are veterans of the Armed
Services lining up to get food.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. That is a very, very salient
point. I don't think this country realizes how impactful the
situation is with our veterans going hungry, and it is a shame
and it is a disgrace. Are there any others of you that have
similar efforts targeting our veterans?
Mr. Kunz. Just to comment on that, Mr. Scott. As a veteran
with a bum knee and who struggled with reintegrating into
civilian society post-employment, this is an issue that is
particularly close to my heart as well, obviously.
We have worked to find and coordinate partnerships with
veterans' services organizations, with VFW organizations, and
some VFWs are Community Partners taking part in this
partnership with the State of Texas.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Okay.
Mr. Webb. And we are not the experts in this area, but we
have found that a veteran is more than twice as likely than the
average American to be food insecure.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. That is right.
Mr. Webb. And so we are actually trying to build some
programs now that are not the final solution but similar to our
food drop truck models providing food to those veterans in
their time of need.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well, thank you very much. This
is why I said earlier we need two trains running because we
can't do it all. We need so much there, and nowhere is this
20--20 is the number of each day that we have a veteran
committing suicide. PTSD affects that. I work very closely with
them as do my staff on that, and I commend you and hope that we
do more. Did you want to make a closing statement now?
The Chairman. This has been a terrific, really terrific
panel. I want to give each one of you another minute to get
into the record and tell Mr. Scott and I something that you may
have thought, ``Gee, I wish I could have gotten it in the
conversation.'' Mr. Webb, you had something earlier I cut you
off on. So we will just go down the line, if there is one other
thing. We will put a minute on the clock for each one of you,
and anything else you wanted to get in the record.
Ms. Maehr. Sure. Let me start with what I just say when
people come to my food bank and ask me how is it going. We are
doing a booming business, and we do not want to be doing a
booming business. There are more than 800,000 people in our
community who are turning to us for need, and the faces of the
people we are serving might surprise you. Increasingly, the
people that we serve in our community and the people who are
hungry in America, they are people who do everything right.
They are people with jobs. They are people who are sending
their children to school. There are people who, despite all of
their best efforts, they need that additional assistance. And
that is what SNAP does.
So the opportunity to protect SNAP, the opportunity to look
at other critical nutrition programs. We haven't talked very
much about CSFP, but it is a program that is on the front lines
of making sure that the older adults in our community have food
and also the importance of the TEFAP Program. We are so
grateful for the increase that we received in the 2014 Farm
Bill. But having the additional dollars for storage and
distribution make it possible for great organizations to
continue to do this work. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank you. Ms. Green-Patton?
Ms. Green-Patton. Thank you. Again, I am a proud past
product or benefactor of the SNAP program, and we need to make
sure that people like myself and people that will receive the
program or receive the benefits of it, they are not caught up
in the bureaucracy of just trying to say I want to feed my
family. It is a trampoline. I know some people don't feel like
it is. I think people look at us and they say, ``Oh, you want
to stay on there your whole life.'' And that is definitely not
the case. We just want a moment to be able to feed our family
and get back to doing what we do as Americans. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Kunz?
Mr. Kunz. To pick up Mr. Scott's metaphor about the two
trains running, we have done some of the two trains running,
and that is wonderful. But I also want to point out that what
we are talking about today, these kind of partnerships, this is
more like a team of horses. We are not competing, and we are
not working independently. We are working together in tandem.
And we have yet to see and evaluate what those partnerships
with those teams can do.
On this panel there are three doctors, I believe there are
at least six veterans. If you were from the public sector, the
private sector, all these different areas of expertise, that is
what the Community Partner Program is, and that is what several
of our partnerships are. We bring people with all different
types of expertise to the table alongside the government, and
funding for that through social innovation funds, through the
Hunger Free Communities line item that has been previously
zeroed out, and all kinds of other ways the Federal Government
can continue to create and improve and evaluate these public-
private partnerships would aid us in our work.
The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Ender?
Ms. Ender. In regards to seniors, I would just like to say
that everyone ages very, very differently. You can have
somebody that is in their 60s and physically they can't do
things that somebody in their 80s could do. And then, mentally,
there is the same sort of comparison.
And we have an employment program at our agency, and we
help those that want to get back into the workforce. But there
are seniors that cannot do that for whatever reason. And
seniors are a little bit different than the rest of the
population oftentimes because they are on a fixed income. It
doesn't grow that much, and they can't go get another, a second
job or something like that. So they can be under tremendous
stress when we see them. They can be crying. They can be angry.
They can be very frustrated. They can be--and when you get
under stress and you aren't eating well and maybe you haven't
been able to purchase your meds, and you are not taking those
on a regular basis, you need assistance, you need help. That is
where the Community Partnerships are really, really important.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Webb?
Mr. Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We strongly support the
existence of SNAP because of the individuals we serve and the
need, the safety net that has been described. We can't do our
work without that baseline. But we do believe like Ms. Maehr
said, that we should be working ourselves out of a job.
And to Mr. Scott's point earlier, it should be a
partnership that allows us to test ideas, test innovation that
can be scaled up, has measurable impact, and ultimately moves
individuals from the situation where they need the safety net
so that we can be in a place where when they use that safety
net and they bounce from the safety net to the trampoline, they
have someplace to land. And the ways that we believe we have
seen this done well is around social innovation, social
enterprise that may require the team building and the
collaboration up-front and the up-front investment but long
term is a community-owned, community-led project that we can
step away from and leave in the community for long term.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Webb. Mr. Scott, for a closing
statement?
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just
really want to commend you for putting this panel together and
this hearing for several important reasons. One, our rich
nation. We are the most powerful nation, and we should not rest
with any soul in this country, any child, any person going
hungry. And to you panelists, when I hear your testimony and
what you are doing, I am reminded of what Jesus Christ Himself
said. When the disciples asked Him, what is it you would have
me to do? He said go and feed the hungry and love your neighbor
as yourself. That you all are doing. God bless you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I want to again thank
our panelists. I have been around this place for a while, and
this has been one of the better--best, quite frankly--group of
five presenters that we have had. I want the world to know that
you are the example of the spokesmen for hundreds and thousands
of other agencies across this nation that are taking the bull
by the horns themselves. They are not waiting on government.
They are not waiting on anybody else. They just say we see a
problem, and we need to fix it. And that can-do spirit across
this panel is quite evident, and I want to thank you for being
a part of that and the partners in this effort.
This is a partnership. No one, despite some of the
comments, no one has talked about doing away with SNAP. We want
it to be better. We want it to work for the participants. We
want it to work for the taxpayer, and that is the purpose of
this multi-year review is to get it right, to try to figure out
what the right policies are, how can we make these things work.
I visited my own food bank in Odessa. It covers about 17
counties. At the time I was there, the unemployment rate in
Midland and Odessa, in that area, was three percent or less.
Think about that, three percent. So I am thinking this food
bank is not doing much. They just get to be hanging out because
at that rate, everybody has a job, everybody who wants a job
has a job, and the boom is on. It was stunning to me to find
out that their deliveries had gone from 3 million pounds to 5
million pounds during that timeframe. And it is like that is
just counter-intuitive. I don't understand how that could
happen.
Well, what is happening is because the boom that came in
and the thousands of people that came to community, housing
costs soared well beyond the standard that you would think a
family could be able to handle. And so both ends of the
barbell, the working poor and the elderly, because of fixed
incomes and the impact, they were having to pay so much more
for their housing and rent that they had to reduce their food
budgets. And so the deliveries to those two groups had
skyrocketed. The group in the middle, the rod, they were doing
great, three percent unemployment and they were taking good
care of themselves.
So it was eye-opening to me to visit, and I am going to
encourage all of our Members to visit their food banks, to
visit on the ground. Go see the folks that are trying to take
care of business and make that happen.
I was also disappointed and particularly resented that
there wasn't a mention of the role of families, particularly
with the elderly. I have an 86 year old mother. She just turned
86, and she is stunningly proud of that. But she has begun to
start that process where she is no longer fully capable for
herself. But families have a role that I don't think was
discussed this morning, maybe not on purpose, but I do see many
instances where families have not taken up their
responsibilities to care for the folks, their immediately
family, and we need to continue to highlight that and help
people understand that that is a vitally important part of this
process.
I am also disappointed to learn about another situation. I
visited the Jane Long Elementary School in Midland 2 weeks ago
to talk about the breakfast program and the lunch program. The
coordinator there for the school district also coordinates the
summer program where children who are in daycare programs and
other activities get help for those who need it.
Apparently the YMCA, the national Y, in cooperation with
Ms. Obama and others, have developed standards for those
programs that they cannot meet. And so this summer, the Midland
Y which has always been a great partner in that summer partner
program where you have a coordinator that goes to the various
delivery agencies. They will be out of the program because they
can't participate. And there will be 200 kids this summer who
won't get the kind of nutrition help here in the summer between
school that they would have otherwise gotten. So that is a
problem where government has interfered with the delivery of
the private sector.
This has been a terrific experience for Mr. Scott and I and
the rest of the panel. I want to thank each one of you again
for coming and sharing with us some important information and
is helping us move along in what is going to be a 2 year review
of the SNAP program.
So under the rules of the Committee, today's record will
remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material
and supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any
question posed by a Member. This hearing of the Committee on
Agriculture is now adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Supplementary Material Submitted by Kate Maehr, Executive Director and
Chief Executive Officer, Greater Chicago Food Depository, Chicago, IL
Insert
Mr. Emmer. . . . It struck me, and I just had a question about: can
you tell us how much is provided from one source versus from another
source? I want to talk about measurements and impacts. Can you tell me
how you are measuring the impact, and if others want to add to this
because I want to know how I can quantify it when I have to make policy
decisions?
* * * * *
Mr. Emmer. And I guess that is where I was coming from. One side is
production, how much you are producing, how much you are providing. But
the other one is results which is Ms. Green-Patton when you talk about
results.
Ms. Maehr. You have raised an incredibly important point in that
more of us--we need to think more about the health of the people that
we are serving. And this idea, from our perspective, food is medicine,
and it is not just about moving pounds. It is not just about the
through-put, but it is also thinking about the health impact. And so
food banks all across this country are engaged in partnerships with
health systems, with hospitals, and we are measuring the health----
Mr. Emmer. I am running out of time, so I just want to say if you
could get us that information----
Ms. Maehr. Absolutely.
Thank you for your question, Congressman Emmer. The first part of
my answer focuses more broadly on what Feeding America and our network
of food banks are doing. The second part is focused more specifically
on Greater Chicago Food Depository's programs in this area.
Many low-income people face the dual burden of food insecurity and
diet related disease. For example, Feeding America's research report,
Hunger in America 2014, shows that 33 percent of food bank client
households have at least one member with Diabetes, 58 percent include
at least one member with Hypertension. Forty-seven percent of food bank
clients report that they are in fair or poor health and 66 percent
report choosing between paying for food and paying for medical care or
medicine.
Given the prevalence of diet related disease, the fact that
accessing nutritious food can be a particular challenge for low-income
families and the importance of ``food as medicine'' in promoting good
health and helping treat chronic conditions like Diabetes and
Hypertension, food banks have increasing been partnering with
physicians and healthcare providers on a number of fronts. These
efforts include:
Implementing food insecurity screening and referral
processes in clinics and hospitals.
Providing food pantries and SNAP application assistance on
site at clinics and hospitals. One model is for physicians to
write ``prescriptions'' for produce and other healthy foods and
the patients bring the to an on-site or mobile
pantry. Patients also receive information on where they can get
help- both food assistance and nutrition education on an
ongoing basis.
This summer, in partnership with Cornell University, Feeding
America will launch a 6 month study to evaluate how small
environmental changes at pantries can impact client food
choices and consumption. This work is modeled after work done
in school cafeterias and the retail environment.
In 2011, Feeding America launched a groundbreaking 3 year Diabetes
Pilot to evaluate the feasibility of food banks to provide diabetes
self-management support to individuals struggling with hunger and type-
2 diabetes. The pilot also included blood sugar monitoring, diabetes-
appropriate food boxes, diabetes and nutrition education and connection
to a medical home. The results are very promising. For the over 800
participants completing the program, we saw statistically significant
improvements in indicators including: reduced Diabetes distress,
improved medication adherence, improved Diabetes self-efficacy,
decreased depressive symptoms, increased fruit and vegetable intake and
blood sugar control. This year, we launched a randomized control trial
as part of phase two, which will further help to quantify the
effectiveness of a food bank led diabetes intervention to improve
health outcomes among our clients.
Leveraging the Affordable Care Act's new standard of demonstrable
community benefit for nonprofit hospitals, Feeding America is
partnering with Ascension Health to pilot a community collaboration
between Providence Hospital and the Bay Area Food Bank in Mobile,
Alabama around the hospital's Community Needs Assessment and
Implementation Plan. This pilot will allow us to build a case study and
evaluation to develop models on how food banks can work with local
hospitals to improve community health indicators.
In Cook County, the Greater Chicago Food Depository has developed a
partnership with ACCESS Community Health Network to link health and
hunger. As part of this partnership, medical providers administer a
two-question food insecurity screen and refer food insecure patients to
nearby food pantries, the Food Depository's FRESH produce truck and our
SNAP Outreach hotline.
To better reach veterans in need, including those who are
experiencing health challenges, the Food Depository opened weekly food
pantries at Jesse Brown VA Medical Center in 2013 and Edward Hines, Jr.
VA Hospital in 2014. These programs enable struggling veterans to
receive nutritious food options in the same facilities where they might
go for medical care.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Dustin Kunz, Research Manager;
Salesforce Administrator and Developer, Texas Hunger Initiative, Baylor
University, Waco, TX
Public-private partnerships play to the strengths of both sectors.
Government agencies execute programs with precision and relative
efficiency. They navigate the legal language related to participation,
eligibility, compliance, and subsequently they are very good at
enforcement--SNAP has a lower fraud rate than any other government
benefits program. Government agencies have access to demographic and
economic data that enables them to identify places and groups that
would benefit most from outreach and education.
Nonprofits, on the other hand, can actually do the outreach and
education, and can transition from helping ZIP Codes and demographics
to helping individuals and families--people, not Census tracts--and can
aid the family well beyond the government benefits for which they
qualify. SNAP does raise people just above poverty, and it can catch
them before they are knee deep in it, but the continuum of care at a
nonprofit is designed to act as a trampoline to launch them back into
self-sufficiency.
Insert 1
Mr. Neugebauer. One of the issues that Mr. Kunz talked about
Texas is a big state. I have a big district. Mike has a big
district. And so when you leverage and use these partnerships,
one of the concerns that I would have is what kind of oversight
is the agency able to do to make sure that these agencies are
all following the guidelines? Because one of the things that--
it is not for a lack of people signing up for the food stamp
program. I mean, one in seven Americans today are on the Food
Stamp Program, and unfortunately, we think there are some
people that are on the Food Stamp Program that maybe have not
necessarily qualified to do that because of loopholes and so
forth.
So what are you doing to make sure that our partners are
following the guidelines to make sure that people that are
actually getting on food stamps are actually qualified to do
that?
Mr. Kunz. Right. Thank you. Thank you for re-framing the
question. I tend to not see challenges. I tend to see possible
solutions, and this is one of the great things about the
Community Partner Program is that the Health and Human Services
Commission actually has a fairly reasonably rigorous process to
become a Community Partner. HHSC treats Community Partners
essentially as subcontractors, and there is an MOU that is
signed, despite the fact there is no financial relationship.
And then these partners are--we track what is happening with
the partners, applications they are filling out. Are there
common errors and are there patterns? And if there are, HHSC
follows up. The Health and Human Services Commission, along
with Texas Hunger Imitative, has been doing site visits to each
of these different partners. So we have at least offered and
are in the process of making more site visits to all of them.
And so as we go through that process we want to make sure
that they are displaying proper information, and equal
opportunity information and that all of the legal sides are
covered and that we are sharing information with everyone
involved. We provide statistical reports to the partners, and
we also are able to analyze those on our end to make sure that
there aren't errors.
Regarding enforcement, the partner never has the opportunity
or intention of determining eligibility or payment rates. That
remains entirely with the Health and Human Services Commission
and allows the government to do what the government does really
well and the partner to do what it does well.
What makes cross-sector collaboration successful are the differing
strengths of each participating entity. However, these differences also
present unique challenges that need to be navigated. In any cross-
sector collaboration, entities will need to move toward one another to
work effectively. When bringing together multiple entities from varying
sectors, communication barriers arise because of disparate vocabularies
and varying organizational structures, internal processes and project
timelines. Along with this, the different ways sectors measure success
make establishing common metrics for each party crucial. Despite these
differences, if both parties are committed to the success of the
partnership, they can work to meet the needs of the other. Government
agencies are designed to administer large-scale programs that
necessitate structure and less flexibility but provide scalability.
Fleet-footed nonprofits can pivot on a dime to react to changing
circumstances, complementing the agencies' scope and capacity. In the
case of large-scale public-private partnerships, like those in Texas,
the convening entity that spans the gap between the various
contributors facilitates collaboration through translation, evaluation,
and other needs as they arise. This enables the partnerships to
function fluidly without every department having to learn the language
of the other sector and allows for the cross-sector collaboration to
amplify the strengths of individual entities and maximize their impact.
Insert 2
Mr. LaMalfa. Interesting. Well, I find that is a pretty
fairly common theme across the boundaries. Natural Resources
Committee, local people that manage forests and try to fight
forest fire are complaining they are not getting enough local
input with Federal fire fighters or Federal Forest Service,
outside entities that don't know how to do it locally. So it is
interesting, that the local input is very important.
If other states were looking for a model on this, looking to Texas,
what would you recommend be done differently to streamline, maybe help
other states to emulate what you are trying to do there? Is there some
speed bumps that you would advise them to go around?
Mr. Kunz. Sure. One of the speed bumps for a lot of
organizations is funding. It does require some kind of funding
in order to get these partnerships off the ground in order to
really do----
Mr. LaMalfa. Start-up funding? Not program but the start-up
type funding?
Mr. Kunz. Right. Instead of funding for the kind of thing
that Texas Hunger Initiative does, we convene all these
organizations, but that requires everything from staff to
perform the function of a backbone organization, which is the
specific collective impact term, to fund those backbone
organizations to create these partnerships and honestly to pay
for coffee at these meetings that keep people in the room and
keep them working.
In Texas, we are working to understand, evaluate, and implement the
model(s) of public-private partnerships. This takes time, and it takes
data. We encourage Congress to make the Hunger Free Communities a
stand-alone component of the farm bill with mandatory funding to
increase the capacity of states developing innovative partnerships.
This will strengthen the ability for states to utilize the collective
strengths of multi-sectoral partnerships which will translate into more
families moving towards self-sufficiency.
Insert 3
Mr. Allen. Right. Well, in other words on the SNAP program,
in 2014, we fed about 46.5 million people which was about $418
per person per day. Do you all keep any statistics like that?
Mr. Kunz. We in Texas have a whole variety of statistics we
would love to share with your office. I will say that Craig
Gundersen is one of the leading experts in this field, and he
estimates about three percent come from charitable----
Mr. Allen. Food from----
Mr. Kunz.--of the total come from charitable resources.
Of all the food resources and assistance intended to address hunger
in Texas, 1% comes from charitable sources.
Source: http://www.baylor.edu/texashunger/index.php?id=85447.
Average monthly SNAP benefit per person in U.S.: $125.35 (divide
that by 30, approx. $4 a day).
Source: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/
18SNAPavg$PP.pdf.
Insert 4
Mrs. Bustos. Who is doing it right, and what can we learn
from who is doing it right? And anybody can answer that. There
has to be a role model state or community or someplace where we
can say this is what we should be doing and somehow systemize
it so everybody can get this right. Eliminate waste or
redundancy or whatever else is clogging up the efficiency of
the system and making sure that hungry people don't go hungry.
Mr. Kunz. Ms. Bustos, I don't want to say that Texas is doing
it right. It is a bold statement. I want to say we are doing it
well, and we are getting better at it. I think that we are
creating a model for public-private partnership that is
incredibly effective and creates a great exchange between the
private sector and the public sector and creates a lot of
information. I think that we are creating a great model, and I
also know that we have an annual summit coming up, and you are
invited to come in and learn about how this works, everybody on
the ground, and with our legislators.
Texas is implementing public-private partnerships well. We have a
presence in the communities we are seeking to serve, we have strong,
clear lines of communication between the state and the nonprofit, and
both the public and private entities are largely responsive to the
needs of the other. The public sector is able to equip the convening
entity (in this case, a research university) with the necessary
resources to engage 1,200 other nonprofits in benefits access--this
maximizes the strengths of each sector.
______
Submitted Statement by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina; on Behalf of Clyde W. Fitzgerald, Jr., Executive
Director, Second Harvest Food Bank of Northwest North Carolina
Dear Congresswoman Adams,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input which may assist you
in this week's hearing regarding SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) and the
role of the charitable sector in fighting hunger.
Nearly 50 million Americans suffer from food insecurity because
they lack the financial resources to provide for their basic needs and,
in my opinion, food is the most basic of human needs. While economic
recovery is a daily focus of the news media, meaningful recovery has
not yet reached those served by Second Harvest Food Bank of Northwest
North Carolina and our sister food banks that are part of Feeding
America's national network. A parent working one or more jobs trying to
make ends meet and feed his or her family is not concerned with the Dow
Jones Industrial Average or the Federal Discount Rate. Sadly, 18.3 % of
North Carolina's population is currently food insecure.
In the 18 counties served by our food bank, one in six people need
food assistance and, sadly, food insecurity plagues more than one in
four of our children. Hunger is pervasive, urgent, and unfortunately,
still growing. Feeding America's widely-respected Hunger in America
2014 Study reflects that 62% of our more than 400 partner programs
still report significant increases in the numbers of people coming to
them for food assistance. This same authoritative report shows that the
majority of those we are serving have at least one job in the
household; however, about 60% of those jobs are part-time, meaning
fewer work hours, lower rates of pay and generally no health coverage.
So, precious resources are stretched very thin in trying to cover basic
needs. Although the official unemployment rates for the U.S. and North
Carolina are now down to about 5.5% for March, unfortunately, those
rates don't tell the whole story. The Bureau of Labor Statistics U6
Report for this same timeframe reflects an unemployment rate for the
U.S. of 11% and 12.1% for NC, at least twice the level of the official
rates.
Feeding America's Map the Meal Gap 2015 Study released just this
week ranks North Carolina fifth worst in the country regarding the
percentage of the population that is food insecure. Sadly, North
Carolina's 12th Congressional District ranks the worst in our state for
food insecurity and is among the ten worst Congressional districts in
the U.S. Our food bank serves much of the district which you represent.
We have been privileged to partner with you during your many years of
service in the NC House and your leadership at the national level is
crucial to our collective ability to serve those in need of food
assistance.
Solving the problem of hunger and food insecurity in America
requires a strong and sustained partnership between the public and
private sectors and the engagement of compassionate individuals to
ensure that all of our citizens have the opportunity to meet their
basic needs. Government can't and should not be expected to deal with
this significant issue on its own. Similarly, the private sector,
certainly including the charitable sector, can't possibly resolve this
program without the assistance of government programs and policies that
provide support and incentives essential for eliminating hunger and
food insecurity in this great country.
The SNAP Program works as it was intended to work: it responds
quickly in times of disaster or recession, reducing hunger and food
insecurity, improving nutrition and health which, in turn, improves
individual well-being. History shows that SNAP participation increases
during bad times and decreases when the economy improves. The program
serves millions of children, seniors, veterans, people with
disabilities, jobless adults seeking work and those working--often at
multiple jobs trying to make ends meet. Cutting funding for SNAP,
imposing overly restrictive work requirements or changing the program
to a block grant to the states would not only harm millions of our
neediest citizens but also would overwhelm states and charities that
are already unable to meet the need. Such changes would cause more food
insecurity and poverty, worsen individual health outcomes and create
even higher health costs for our country. I urge you and your
Congressional colleagues to continue the bipartisan support of the SNAP
program which is absolutely vital to the health and well-being of
nearly 50 million Americans!
We need your support and the bipartisan support of the Congress to
pass The America Gives More Act this year. This legislation expands
food donation tax deductions to help small and large farmers,
retailers, restaurants and food manufactures donate excess wholesome
food to the nation's food banks. With over 70 billion pounds of food
wasted each year, this legislation is critically needed to help food
banks provide more donated fresh produce to those in need.
Other major legislative matter vital to our ability to provide food
to those in need include the Child Nutrition Reauthorization, ensuring
full funding for the TEFAP and TEFAP Bonus Commodities Programs as
authorized in the farm bill and, as the House and Senate Budget
Resolutions are conferenced, opposing any reconciliation instructions
to the Agriculture Committee that would result in reductions to vital
Federal nutrition programs.
I am grateful for the opportunity to provide input on these
important matters. We are proud to partner with you and many others in
the Congress in providing food and hope to the many, who unfortunately,
have too little of both.
Sincerely,
Clyde W. Fitzgerald, Jr. Executive Director.
______
Submitted Statement by MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger
Charity Alone Is Not the Answer
Among the myths about hunger in America frequently repeated is the
notion that it is better for local charities to feed people, not the
government. The massive scale of the issue of hunger, the complex
factors contributing to this problem, and the response necessary to
adequately address it reveal a far different truth: charity alone is
not the answer to ending hunger.
Charitable organizations--including MAZON's nationwide network of
partners on the front lines--were not conceived to feed entire
communities. Instead, these food banks, food pantries, and soup
kitchens help to alleviate what were thought to be temporary or
emergency situations. The charitable sector provides an important
short-term fix but is inherently insufficient to solve the systemic
problem of hunger. Many of these agencies are small operations open
only a few days a week and for a few hours of each day. They are
largely volunteer run, often out of basements or closets at their local
houses of worship, and they primarily distribute food that has been
donated from within their communities. They simply could never have the
capacity to feed the significant and persistent number of people who
need help.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture plays a strong and vital role in
ensuring that hungry Americans have access to food by administering 15
distinct food and nutrition assistance programs. These Federal
assistance programs serve as our nation's frontline defense against
food insecurity. We cannot food bank our way to an end to hunger, nor
do charities have the means to fill the gap left by declining
government support. Only the government has the capacity to address an
issue with the magnitude of hunger and work toward a solution to this
problem.
It is essential that the government nutrition safety net programs
are operated with the utmost effectiveness, efficiency, and
accountability, and the USDA works diligently to ensure this is the
case. Such well-run government programs embody our national commitment
to account for the needs and rights of all Americans and our collective
responsibility to care for the most vulnerable among us. MAZON: A
Jewish Response to Hunger is proud to stand as a partner in this shared
effort to end hunger in the U.S.
attachment
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Submitted Questions
Response from Kate Maehr, Executive Director and Chief Executive
Officer, Greater Chicago Food Depository
Question Submitted by Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Question. North Carolina has a proud tradition of food banks. All
of our 100 counties are served through seven different banks and a
network of 2,500 pantries, shelters and soup kitchens across the state.
Last year, over 450,000 volunteer hours were tallied and 150 million
pounds of food were distributed. The seven food banks are part of an
association which is a member of Feeding America, and 60% of the direct
feeding is handled by our faith based organizations. If that network
wasn't there, North Carolina would not have the success it does. Also,
95 of every dollar goes to actual food on people's tables, meaning our
state runs a very efficient program.
Over the last decade, food banks have increasingly been able to
offer more and more fresh fruits and vegetables. Ms. Maehr, can you
comment on this movement? Are there any challenges to storing or
delivering more fresh produce? It seems like this increase is a win-win
for farmers and for consumers.
Continuing on this, one issue that continues to frustrate the North
Carolina food banks is the amount of unharvested or unsold fruits and
vegetables that go unused in North Carolina. The food banks' goal is to
find ways of getting the necessary equipment and manpower to areas
where this food can be used by the food banks. The director of our
state association representing the seven food banks has spoken to my
office about tax reforms and accounting reforms that could be helpful
in making it easier for farmers to donate this food. Ms. Maehr, have
you seen this problem in your area? Are there things you are doing to
help farmers get their unused commodities to food banks? Do you have
suggestions of how Congress can help with this problem?
Answer. Thank you for your question Representative Rouzer. Both the
Feeding America network and the Greater Chicago Food Depository have
made increasing the amount of fresh produce distributed to our clients
a key part of our strategic plans over the last decade. Our food bank
network currently moves about 1 billion lbs. of produce annually to all
counties in the United States and Puerto Rico, about 600 million lbs.
of which is donated from produce farmers, packers and/or shippers.
Getting fresh fruits and vegetables to the hungry people that need it
is a huge focus for us. As a food bank network, we have set an
aggressive goal of closing the national meal gap (distributing enough
meals so that every individual in the United States that is in need of
a meal has access to one). With the current meal gap being 8.7 million
meals, we will have to grow by almost 90%, about 40% of which will be
fresh produce. In our most recent research study, 55% of the people we
serve said that fresh fruits and vegetables were the most desired item
not received. In the Food Depository's local network, more than \1/3\
of everything we distribute is fresh produce and the people we serve
appreciate this nutritious food, but we know that more needs to be
done.
There are challenges involved in increasing our capacity to source
and distribute more fresh produce. Distributing more food that is
perishable means investing in the logistics need to do so safely and
efficiently, meaning more refrigerated trucks and distribution through
avenues like mobile pantries.
There are also challenges in obtaining increasing amounts of fresh
produce to distribute to the 46.5 million Americans we serve each year.
As you know from your work with food banks in North Carolina, there is
an enormous amount of food that is wasted in America each year, around
70 billion pounds. A significant portion of the amount of nutritious
food wasted, 48 million pounds, is pre-production and includes fresh
produce that is not donated from farmers and producers. Some of these
challenges are logistic in nature--if a farmer has an abundant crop,
how can that food be harvested, donated and distributed during its
shelf life? In many cases the decision to donate or not donate is made
before a discussion of logistics even starts. There are thousands of
farmers that donate each year to help those in need, but this is a
small fraction of the available produce to donate. There is a real
financial impact on donors to pack and prepare excess food for
donation, and that is not a cost that all donors can bear. Many farmers
are not eligible for the federal food donation tax deduction that lets
qualified donors take an enhanced tax deduction when they donate
nutritious food to nonprofits.
Feeding America and GCFD have been working with supporters in
Congress and throughout the food industry to enact the America Gives
More Act (H.R. 644), which would improve and expand federal tax
incentives so that all donors, large or small, retailer, farmer,
restaurant, or food manufacturer, can take an enhanced tax deduction
when they donate excess food to a nonprofit.
Tax incentives that apply to all donors are one part of the
solution. The other part is funding pilots to test the most efficient
ways to capture and distribute fresh produce to clients. Our food banks
have started to work with USDA on identifying grant programs that can
serve several purposes: promote local food and rural development,
promote fresh produce, and connect low income clients at food banks
with more produce. We would love to work with Congress to identify how
we could maximize the impact these grants could have on our ability to
get more produce to our clients. Finally, in Illinois, we are also
encouraging the development of an agricultural clearance program,
similar to successful models in other states, including Ohio.
Thank you, again, for your thoughtful question.
Kate Maehr,
Executive Director and CEO,
Greater Chicago Food Depository.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Question 1. How do your organizations partner with other nonprofits
and agencies to provide support to the hungry as they struggle to make
ends meet?
Question 2. What percentage of the individuals and households that
you serve include children?
Question 3. Do you all work with agriculture co-ops to provide
affordable, locally-grown food in to the hungry your communities?
Answer. 1-3 Thank you for your questions Representative Adams. Both
nationally and locally, partnerships throughout the nonprofit community
and with local social service agencies play a key role in our
distribution of 3.8 million meals to 46.5 million clients a year. The
200 food banks in the Feeding America network provide food to 46,000
agencies. The agencies that partner with our food banks are all
independent nonprofits, and data from the Feeding America Hunger in
America 2014 shows that 62% are faith based. Agency partnership and
development is a key facet of our work to help clients. Our food banks
work with agencies to help develop programs to address specific client
needs, including after school and summer seals, senior meals, school
pantries, and snap outreach. Our food banks also work with agencies to
help with capacity improvements and other ideas to increase services to
clients.
In Cook County, the Greater Chicago Food Depository provides food
through a network of 650 food pantries, soup kitchens, shelters and
programs. Beyond providing food, we are committed to investing in the
future of our member agencies with training and grant opportunities so
they can grow stronger in their community-level response to hunger.
According to Feeding America's Hunger in America 2014 study, our
network is serving 46.5 million Americans, including 12 million
children and seven million seniors. Of the households served by the
Feeding America network, 32% of client households have at least one
child. Additionally, 26% of the households we serve have at least one
senior, and 6% of the households we serve have at least one child and
senior.
In Cook County, the Greater Chicago Food Depository's network
serves 812,100 individuals each year, including 164,500 children and
125,200 seniors. Of the households served by the Food Depository, 39%
include at least one child and 36% include at least one senior.
Both the Feeding America network and the Greater Chicago Food
Depository have made increasing the amount of fresh produce distributed
to our clients a key part of our strategic plans over the last decade.
Our food bank network currently moves about 1 billion lbs. of produce
annually to all counties in the United States and Puerto Rico, about
600 million lbs. of which is donated from produce farmers, packers and/
or shippers. Getting fresh fruits and vegetables to the hungry people
that need it is a huge focus for us. Of the 67 million pounds of food
distributed by the Greater Chicago Food Depository last year, more than
\1/3\ was fresh produce. As a food bank network, we have set an
aggressive goal of closing the national meal gap (distributing enough
meals so that every individual in the United States that is in need of
a meal has access to one). With the current national meal gap being 8.7
million meals, we will have to grow by almost 90%, about 40% of which
will come from fresh produce. In our most recent research study, 55% of
the people we serve said that fresh fruits and vegetables were the most
desired item not received. This work to increase produce includes
working with agriculture co-ops locally and regionally to identify
opportunities to redirect excess produce to our food banks to help
those in need. We know from Hunger in America 2014 that produce is an
item that our clients want more of but are not able to afford in many
cases. In Illinois, food banks have worked directly with farmers who
grow food to donate, but these partnerships do not come close to the
potential of our state to produce food for people in need. We are
encouraging the development of an agriculture clearance program similar
to successful models in other states including Ohio.
However, there are challenges in obtaining increasing amounts of
fresh produce to distribute to the 46.5 million Americans we serve each
year. There is an enormous amount of food that is wasted in America
each year, around 70 billion pounds. A significant portion of the
amount of nutritious food wasted, 48 million pounds, is pre-production
and includes fresh produce that is not donated from farmers and
producers. Some of these challenges are logistic in nature--if a farmer
has an abundant crop, how can that food be harvested, donated and
distributed during its shelf life? In many cases the decision to donate
or not donate is made before a discussion of logistics even starts.
There are thousands of farmers that donate each year to help those in
need, but this is a small fraction of the available produce to donate.
There is a real financial impact on donors to pack and prepare excess
food for donation, and that is not a cost that all donors can bear.
Many farmers are not eligible for the Federal food donation tax
deduction that lets qualified donors take an enhanced tax deduction
when they donate nutritious food to nonprofits.
Feeding America and GCFD have been working with supporters in
Congress and throughout the food industry to enact the America Gives
More Act (H.R. 644), which would improve and expand federal tax
incentives so that all donors, large or small, retailer, farmer,
restaurant, or food manufacturer, can take an enhanced tax deduction
when they donate excess food to a nonprofit.
Tax incentives that apply to all donors are one part of the
solution. The other part is funding pilots to test the most efficient
ways to capture and distribute fresh produce to clients. Our food banks
have started to work with USDA on identifying grant programs that can
serve several purposes: promote local food and rural development,
promote fresh produce, and connect low income clients at food banks
with more produce. We would love to work with Congress to identify how
we could maximize the impact these grants could have on our ability to
get more produce to our clients.
Response from Dustin Kunz, Research Manager; Salesforce Administrator
and Developer, Texas Hunger Initiative, Baylor University,
Waco, TX
Question Submitted by Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Question. Thank you for appearing before the Committee today. I'd
like to focus on the issue of fighting hunger in rural America, which
is of particular interest to the Eighth district of Georgia.
There are a lot of committed individuals and groups in the
charitable sector in my district who are working to tackle this issue
head on. One such group is Second Harvest of South Georgia. Second
Harvest is the regional food bank that serves 30 counties in South
Georgia, 12 of which are in my district. The area they serve has the
highest rates of food insecurity in Georgia and among the highest rates
of food insecurity in the nation. They also work collaboratively with a
network of 450 partner charities in their service counties. I have made
several trips to their facility and always enjoy the opportunity to see
the good work they do. The challenges they face in confronting hunger
in rural America differ in many ways from the challenges faced by their
urban counterparts. This reality is another reminder that one size fits
all solutions will ultimately not accomplish our goals of serving
individuals and families in need and helping lift people out of
poverty.
Mr. Kunz and Mr. Webb, I'd like to hear some of your perspectives
on the challenges of fighting hunger in rural America. How do these
challenges differ from those in urban areas? Where might rural
organizations be seeing gaps for the clients they're serving? What are
some of the ways your organizations are working to meet the needs of
rural Americans, such as lack of adequate transportation? What are some
practical solutions to get the food directly to those in rural areas
who need it?
Answer. Recent Census Bureau data indicate the shifting of poverty
concentration to suburban and rural areas: ``between 2000 and 2010,
people living in areas outside of metropolitan areas saw the largest
percentage point increase in the proportion of people living in poverty
areas.'' \1\ Patterns of farm crisis, unemployment, seasonal
employment, lack of jobs, low-paying jobs that do not provide benefits,
systemic oppression and long-term connection between race and poverty
all contribute to this reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Changes in Areas with Concentrated Poverty: 2000 to 2010 http:/
/www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acs-
27.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Census defines Urban Areas as densely developed places with
50,000 or more people. Urban clusters are developed regions with at
least 2,500 people, but less than 50,000. Any other region is
classified as rural.\2\ In Texas, there are 30 high poverty counties
located in rural areas. In urban areas, children are often concentrated
in certain neighborhoods, but food-insecure children in rural areas may
be scattered throughout a large area; therefore, lack in coordinated
services and issues of transportation and communication are
exacerbated. The unique reality of rural poverty requires a
collaborative, public-private infrastructure to increase the capacity
of rural communities. Fortunately, for many rural communities,
collaboration and interagency cooperation is normal and necessary due
to a shortage of funds to support services and programs. Collaboration
with congregations is also common because faith-based organizations
sometimes provide services to fill in the gaps.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Urban and Rural Classification: http://www.census.gov/geo/
reference/urban-rural.html.
\3\ The Handbook of Community Practice (2005) p. 402-417 entitled
``Rural Community Practice: Organizing, Planning, and Development.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We convene community organizations in rural communities to increase
access points for public benefits including SNAP and the summer meals
program. Schools, nonprofits, and congregations play a crucial role in
the implementation of summer meals programs. Through Census and state
agency program data, we denote where summer meals sites are located and
where the gaps in coverage are so that we can strategically maximize on
the distribution and capacity of sites to serve meals to children in
these rural communities. Similarly, in order to increase access points
for public benefits across the state, we recruit and support community-
based organizations to equip them to assist Texans in applying for the
benefits as part of a larger continuum of care. We target Census tracts
in rural areas with high levels of poverty to maximize our reach in the
areas that need it most.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Question 1. How do your organizations partner with other nonprofits
and agencies to provide support to the hungry as they struggle to make
ends meet?
Answer. THI regional staff, along with subcontracted partners, work
to increase the capacities of local communities and community-based
organizations to provide application assistance to support the
enrollment of eligible clients for benefits including SNAP, Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid coverage, and the
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). THI staff and its partners
leverage existing community linkages to recruit and support this state-
wide network of organizations that include health services, nutritional
services, family services, and faith-based organizations. This state-
wide public-private partnership bridges local, state, and federal
resources to maximize the efficiency and targeted reach of the program.
THI regional staff also work throughout Texas to increase awareness
of and participation in federal child nutrition assistance programs
including School Breakfast, Summer and Afterschool Meals. The
administration and coordination of child nutrition programs also
present unique opportunities for public-private partnerships. They are
building networks for regional and local collaboration with school
districts, service agencies, nonprofits, faith-based communities, and
local governments/municipalities, as well as active meal program
sponsors and sites so that funding, volunteers, and space are pooled
and maximized for the most eligible children. These partnerships
encourage family and community involvement and empower local
communities.
Further, THI and its partners are developing local coalitions
across the state that serve as a mechanism for local communities to
operate strategically to assess the structure and procedures of food
delivery systems, identify resources and gaps, and implement action
plans in order to provide healthy and nutritious food to an increased
number of people. These local coalitions are the foundation of THI's
community engagement model.
Question 2. What percentage of the individuals and households that
you serve include children?
Answer. In Texas, it is estimated that 27 percent of children live
in households experiencing food insecurity, which is higher than the
national average (21%) (Feeding America, 2014). Further, in order to
estimate the scope of at-risk students, researchers utilize free and
reduced-price meal (FRP) eligibility data, which serves as a rough
proxy for the number of children living in poverty because census
poverty data isn't broken down by school/school district level. Fifty-
one percent of U.S. public school children (Southern Education
Foundation, 2015) and 61 percent of Texas public school children
qualify for FRP meals (TDA, 2013-2014 NSLP Breakfast & Lunch Data). THI
and its partners across the state have fostered innovative public-
private partnerships to maximize the reach and efficiency of nutrition
programs so that children and families who need the programs have
access to them.
Question 3. Do you all work with agriculture co-ops to provide
affordable, locally-grown food in to the hungry your communities?
Answer. The Texas Hunger Initiative works with many different
organizations from widely varied sectors to form local, indigenous
coalitions committed to food security in their own communities. While
THI does not exercise control over these coalitions, we partner with
them to provide backbone support: logistics, organizing, training,
expertise, and evaluation. Several of these coalitions have made access
to locally-grown food a priority, both for the nutritional benefit and
for the boon to the very-local economy. These coalitions work with
farmers markets and CSA's to ensure that they are resourced to accept
SNAP and are aware of other programs ensure access to these markets. In
Austin, a private foundation underwrote a grant to offer a SNAP-
matching program for fresh fruits and vegetables at farmers markets,
and several other coalitions are working with potential funders and
innovative markets, and the Texas Hunger Initiative connects the dots
between the USDA and other public entities with local coalitions,
organizations, and markets.
Sources:
Feeding America. (2014). Map the meal gap.http://
www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/our-research/map-the-meal-gap/
Texas Hunger Initiative analysis of 2013-2014 NSLP Lunch and
Breakfast Data, requested from the Texas Department of Agriculture.
Southern Education Foundation. (2015). A new majority research
bulletin: Low income students now a majority in the nation's public
schools. Retrieved from http://www.southerneducation.org/Our-
Strategies/Research-and-Publications/New-Majority-Diverse-Majority-
Report-Series/A-New-Majority-2015-Update-Low-Income-Students-Now.
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: THE WORLD OF NUTRITION,
GOVERNMENT DUPLICATION AND UNMET NEEDS)
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Nutrition,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jackie
Walorski [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Walorski, Gibbs, Hartzler,
Benishek, Davis, Yoho, Abraham, Moolenaar, McGovern, Adams,
Lujan Grisham, Aguilar, Ashford, and DelBene.
Staff present: Anne DeCesaro, Carly Reedholm, Haley Graves,
Jackie Barber, Jessica Carter, Mary Nowak, Mollie Wilken, Ted
Monoson, Lisa Shelton, and Nicole Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE WALORSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM INDIANA
The Chairwoman. Welcome to the next hearing in our review
of the past, present, and future of SNAP. Today we will discuss
and examine the government's duplication and inefficiencies of
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Taxpayers and
recipients deserve a thoughtful and thorough review of SNAP.
They also deserve to know its relationship with other nutrition
programs and how that affects families around the country, as
well as taxpayers.
I want to stress the importance of today's hearing and the
Committee's goal to ensure SNAP has a clear mission and
operates accordingly. That goal should help Americans; both
helping to recognize no one should go hungry, and highlighting
the value of helping to get people out of poverty.
As we heard in the last hearing, our government is not
alone in supporting the nutritional needs of Americans. Today
we will look inward at how government nutrition assistance
programs operate. According to GAO, there are at least 18
different nutrition assistance programs, and together they
spend roughly over $100 billion annually of taxpayer funds.
While SNAP accounts for $3 out of $4 of that today, it is
not alone in providing nutrition assistance. Over the past
several decades, numerous programs have been created to target
various populations with little to no regard in coordinating
with existing programs or concern for overlap. This has created
a web of programs, causing confusion for recipients who are
trying to feed their families and difficulty for states trying
to administer these programs.
The reality is that a majority of SNAP households are also
eligible and receive benefits from at least one of the other
major nutrition assistance programs. In some cases, multiple
programs might be funding the same meals. For example,
recipients may receive USDA commodity food packages through the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program while also receiving SNAP
benefits.
What impact does that have on a family? Is there a
duplication while there are still needs not being met? We want
to ensure every person has access to food, and this overlap
could be causing confusion in the system, in some cases
overlooking individuals altogether who do not have access to
any of these programs.
Our job today is to figure out where the overlap,
duplication, or inefficiency exists. Then we can expertly
target our limited resources to places with potential unmet
needs or weaknesses in the system. Let's continue this
conversation and begin to understand how to best serve all
families because we can always do better.
I thank all of our witnesses for being here with us today
and look forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Walorski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jackie Walorski, a Representative in
Congress from Indiana
Welcome to the next hearing in our review of the Past, Present, and
Future of SNAP. Today we'll discuss and examine the government's
duplication and inefficiencies of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. Taxpayers and recipients deserve a thoughtful and thorough
review of SNAP. They also deserve to know its relationship with other
nutrition programs and how that affects families around the country, as
well as taxpayers.
I want to stress the importance of today's hearing and the
Committee's goal to ensure SNAP has a clear mission and operates
accordingly. That goal should help Americans; both helping to recognize
no one should go hungry, and highlighting the value of helping people
get out of poverty.
As we heard in the last hearing, our government is not alone in
supporting the nutritional needs of Americans. Today, we'll look inward
at how government nutrition assistance programs operate. According to
GAO, there are at least 18 different nutrition assistance programs--and
together--they spend over $100 billion annually of taxpayer funds.
While SNAP accounts for $3 out $4 of that today, it's not alone in
providing nutrition assistance.
Over the past several decades, numerous programs have been created
to target various populations with little to no regard in coordinating
with existing programs or concern for overlap. This has created a web
of programs, causing confusion for recipients who are trying to feed
their families and difficulties for states trying to administer these
programs.
The reality is that a majority of SNAP households are also eligible
and receive benefits from one of the other major nutrition assistance
programs. In some cases, multiple programs might be funding the same
meals. For example, recipients may receive USDA commodity food packages
through the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, while also receiving
SNAP benefits. What impact does that have on a family? Is there
duplication while there are still needs that are not being met? We want
to ensure every person has access to food and this overlap could be
causing confusion in the system, in some cases overlooking individuals
altogether who don't have access to any programs.
Our job today is to figure out where overlap, duplication, or
inefficiency exists. Then, we can more expertly target our limited
resources to places with potential unmet needs or weaknesses in the
system. Let's continue this conversation and begin to understand how to
best serve all families, because we can always do better.
I thank all of our witnesses for being here with us today and look
forward to their testimony.
The Chairwoman. I would now like to recognize Ranking
Member McGovern for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Walorski, and
I want to welcome all the witnesses who are here to testify.
Today's hearing is supposed to focus on duplication and
unmet needs, and let me just begin with duplication.
Duplication implies that the same people are getting the same
benefit twice, and my experience has been that this is not a
problem. Our food and nutrition programs are designed to meet
the unique needs of the diverse populations that they serve.
Let's take senior citizens, for example. Meals on Wheels
serves homebound senior citizens, while CSFP and SNAP provide
food assistance to those who are more mobile. And so even
within the senior population there are distinct needs, unique
needs, that these various programs meet. So, even within the
same population, there are different needs.
I am sad to say that in this country today there are still
too many people who are hungry, and there are a lot of unmet
needs in our food and nutrition programs. During the school
year, the School Lunch and Breakfast Program do a good job of
providing nutritious meals to kids, but in summer, only a
fraction of the kids who receive free and reduced-price meals
have access to summer meals.
Let me also just say something that I think should be
crystal clear to all of my colleagues here. The SNAP benefit is
too low. If you want to talk about an unmet need, there it is.
When I talk to food banks and food pantries, they talk about an
uptick in utilization by people who are in need. The benefit
doesn't last the entire month. It is too small to meet the
nutrition and food needs of the average family. So if we want
to talk about a reform, we ought to be talking about a benefit
that actually meets the need.
I would like to have a discussion about how we could put
food banks out of business. And one of the ways to do that is
to make sure that those who need a benefit like SNAP actually
have an adequate benefit.
I want to make another point, and that is that one of my
frustrations over the last few years is that Congress has been
so focused on trying to demonize the program and finding some
fault with the program, even when there is no fault. In fact,
we have passed legislation that has actually made the situation
worse. Last year's farm bill contained a lot of good things,
but when it came to SNAP, it cut the program. And many of us,
especially those of us in LIHEAP states, have seen the
detrimental effect that it has had.
It is important for us to talk about how we could do
better, but I don't think we should fool ourselves into
believing that charities could pick up the slack or that
somehow there are too many nutrition programs out there,
therefore that is why we are not meeting the need. The fact of
the matter is we are not meeting the need because the
government, in my opinion, is not adequately investing and
responding to the real need that is out there.
So I thank the Chairwoman for giving me the time, and I
look forward to hearing our witnesses.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
The chair would request other Members submit their opening
statements for the record so the witnesses may begin their
testimony and to ensure there is ample time for questions.
The chair would like to notify Members they will be
recognized for questioning in order of seniority for Members
who were here at the start of the hearing. After that, Members
will be recognized in order of arrival. I appreciate Members'
understanding.
Witnesses are reminded to limit their oral statements to 5
minutes. All of the written statements will be included in the
record.
At this time, finally, I would like to welcome our
witnesses to the table. Kay Brown, Director, Education,
Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability
Office; Angela Rachidi, Research Fellow, American Enterprise
Institute; Joe Nader, Executive Chef, Ford Field, and Volunteer
Chef for Share Our Strength's Cooking Matters; Sherry Tussler,
Executive Director, Hunger Task Force, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Ms. Brown, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF KAY E. BROWN, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND
INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairwoman Walorski, Ranking Member
McGovern, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
inviting me here today to discuss federally funded nutrition
assistance programs. I will provide an overview of the programs
and an update on the status of our 2010 recommendations on
program overlap.
Starting with how much the programs cost, in Fiscal Year
2014, the Federal Government spent more than $100 billion on 18
Federal domestic food and nutrition assistance programs.
Program spending ranged from approximately $5 million for a
community grant program, to more than $74 billion on SNAP. The
five largest food assistance programs--SNAP, School Lunch, WIC,
School Breakfast, and the Child and Adult Food Care Program--
accounted for 96 percent of total spending of the 18 programs.
SNAP is by far the largest at more than 70 percent of the
overall total. Four of the five are entitlement programs. WIC
is not.
Since we issued our report in 2010, Federal spending on
these programs has increased by about $40 billion, primarily
due to increased spending on SNAP in response to the economic
crisis.
Now, next, do they work? In 2010 we found that
participation in seven of the 18 programs, including four of
the five largest, was associated with positive outcomes. These
outcomes are consistent with program goals such as raising the
level of nutrition among low-income households, safeguarding
the health and well-being of the nation's children, and
strengthening the agricultural economy.
Regarding the remaining 11 programs, we found that little
was known about their effectiveness because they had not been
well studied.
So why do we have multiple programs? These 18 programs
provide assistance through a decentralized system that involves
multiple providers. Three Federal agencies--USDA, HHS, and
FEMA--numerous state government agencies, and many different
types of local providers, including county governments and
private nonprofit organizations, all play a role.
This decentralized network emerged piecemeal over many
decades to address a variety of targeted needs. For example,
WIC dates back to the 1960s when a White House conference
recommended focusing on the nutritional needs of low-income
pregnant women and preschool children. The Emergency Food
Assistance Program was created to utilize excess Federal food
inventories and assist states with storage costs while helping
the needy.
The advantage of having multiple programs is that they can
help increase access to food for vulnerable populations. This
diversity allows individuals to participate in programs that
best meet their needs, whether it be picking up a bag of
groceries from a food bank or completing the application
process to receive SNAP benefits.
However, this structure shows signs of program overlap;
that is, multiple programs provide comparable benefits to
similar populations but are managed separately. For example,
six programs provide food to eligible children in settings
outside the home, multiple programs provide food targeted to
older adults, and several programs provide groceries and
prepared meals to needy individuals.
This overlap can create unnecessary work, waste
administrative resources, and result in a potentially
inefficient use of Federal funds. Like other social programs,
most food assistance programs have specific and often complex
administrative procedures that Federal, state, and local
organizations must follow, which require staff time and
resources.
Now, about our recommendations: In 2010 we recommended the
Secretary of Agriculture identify and develop methods for
addressing potential inefficiencies among food assistance
programs and reducing unnecessary overlap, particularly among
the smaller programs. Although USDA has taken some steps in
response to our study and a related study by its Inspector
General, we believe that further action is needed. For example,
we previously suggested that USDA convene a group that includes
program representatives, state officials, and local providers.
This group could develop proposals for cost-effective
approaches to address these inefficiencies.
In conclusion, we believe it is possible to improve the
efficiency of the nutrition assistance structure while still
ensuring that those who are eligible can receive the assistance
they need.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kay E. Brown, Director, Education, Workforce, and
Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington,
D.C.
Domestic Food Assistance_Multiple Programs Benefit Millions of
Americans, but Additional Action Is Needed to Address Potential
Overlap and Inefficiencies
GAO Highlights
Highlights of GAO-15-606T (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-
606T), a testimony before the Subcommittee on Nutrition, Committee on
Agriculture, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study
The Federal Government spends billions of dollars each year on food
and nutrition programs. USDA administers most of these programs.
This testimony provides: (1) an overview of domestic food
assistance programs, and (2) an update on past GAO recommendations in
this area. It is based largely on an April 2010 report (GAO-10-346
(http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-346)) and a 2015 update on actions
USDA has taken to address that report's recommendation. To develop the
findings for the 2010 report, GAO analyzed program spending data and
studies on program effectiveness, reviewed relevant Federal laws and
regulations, interviewed relevant experts and officials, and conducted
site visits in five states, selected for diversity in geography and
service delivery models. For the 2015 update, GAO analyzed Federal
spending and program participation data.
What GAO Recommends
In April 2010, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture
take action to address potential inefficiency and overlap among food
assistance programs while ensuring those who are eligible receive the
assistance they need. USDA has taken some action but has not fully
addressed this recommendation. GAO believes more can be done in
response to this recommendation.
View GAO-15-606T (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-606T). For
more information, contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-7215 or
[email protected].
What GAO Found
The Federal Government spent over $100 billion on 18 domestic food
assistance programs in Fiscal Year 2014. Federal spending on the five
largest food assistance programs has increased over the last 20 years,
driven largely by increases in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) following the recession of 2007-2009.
Federal Spending on the Five Largest Programs from Fiscal Year 1995 to
2014, Adjusted to 2014 Dollars
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
data on program costs. GAO-15-606T.
Federal food assistance is provided through a decentralized system
that involves multiple Federal, state, and local organizations. The
complex network of 18 food assistance programs, administered by three
Federal agencies, emerged piecemeal over several decades to meet
various needs. In 2010, research GAO reviewed suggested that
participation in seven of these programs was associated with positive
outcomes, such as improving nutrition among low-income households.
Little was known about the effectiveness of the remaining 11.
In 2010, GAO recommended that USDA identify and develop methods for
addressing potential inefficiencies among food assistance programs and
reducing overlap among the smaller programs. GAO found that some
programs provide comparable benefits to a similar population, but are
managed separately, which is a potentially inefficient use of Federal
funds. In 2013, USDA commissioned a study on the feasibility and
potential cost to assess the extent of overlap and duplication among
these programs and, based on the results, decided to study the impact
of participation in multiple food assistance programs on the
nutritional status of participants. While such a study will provide
important information, it does not address GAO's recommendation. GAO
continues to believe that further action is needed. For example, USDA
could convene a group of experts to discuss potential inefficiencies
and overlap, such as administrative costs across multiple agencies, and
develop proposals to address them.
Chairwoman Walorski, Ranking Member McGovern, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me to discuss federally funded domestic food
assistance programs. The Federal Government spends billions of dollars
every year on food and nutrition assistance programs, which benefit
millions of Americans. The nation's largest food assistance program--
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)--provided more
than $74 billion in benefits in Fiscal Year 2014 to over 46 million
people in an average month. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
administers most of these programs. This testimony provides: (1) an
overview of domestic food assistance programs, and (2) an update on the
recommendation we made in this area.
My testimony today is largely based on a report we issued in April
2010 that examined domestic food assistance programs.\1\ To develop the
findings for our 2010 report, we analyzed food security and program
spending data, reviewed studies on program effectiveness, reviewed
relevant Federal laws and regulations, interviewed relevant experts,
and interviewed government officials and local food assistance
providers from five states (California, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and
Texas).The states were selected to take into account geographic
variation and diversity in the group of local agencies providing
program services. To identify federally funded domestic food assistance
programs for our 2010 report, we searched the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance to identify relevant programs, obtained
supplementary information from Federal agencies, and reviewed related
Federal legislation. The programs selected focused primarily on
providing food and nutrition assistance to low-income individuals and
households. This statement also provides updated information on Federal
spending and program participation in the 18 food assistance programs
that we identified in our 2010 report. More details on our scope and
methodology can be found in the issued report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Domestic Food Assistance: Complex System Benefits
Millions, but Additional Efforts Could Address Potential Inefficiency
and Overlap among Smaller Programs, GAO-10-346 (http://www.gao.gov/
products/GAO-10-346) (Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work this statement is based on was conducted in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
The Federal Government Spent More Than $100 Billion on 18 Food
Assistance Programs in Fiscal Year 2014
The Federal Government spent more than $100 billion in Fiscal Year
2014 on 18 domestic food and nutrition assistance programs. Programs'
spending amounts ranged from approximately $5 million on the Community
Food Projects Competitive Grants Program to more than $74 billion on
SNAP (see Table 1). In our 2010 report, we found that the Federal
Government spent approximately $62.7 billion on these programs in
Fiscal Year 2008.
Table 1: Federal Spending on 18 Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs
in Fiscal Year 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Programs and funding streams 2014 spending
(in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP 74,596.9
National School Lunch Program 11,289.7
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 7,144.8
Infants, and Children (WIC)
School Breakfast Program 3,716.1
Child and Adult Care Food Program 3,111.9
Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico a 1,902.8
Elderly Nutrition Program: Home-Delivered and Congregate 811.2
Nutrition Services b, c
The Emergency Food Assistance Program 635.9
Summer Food Service Program 464.4
Commodity Supplemental Food Program 180.9
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program 167.7
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program c 120.0
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 119.1
Grants to American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native 26.2
Hawaiian Organizations for Nutrition and Supportive
Services c
Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program 20.6
WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program 19.6
Special Milk Program 10.7
Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program c 5.0
---------------
Total 104,343.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of Fiscal Year 2016 Congressional budget
justifications for USDA's Food and Nutrition Service, USDA's National
Institute of Food and Agriculture, HHS' Administration on Aging, and
DHS' Federal Emergency Management Agency. GAO-15-606T.
Note: Unless otherwise noted, funding amounts represent Fiscal Year 2014
obligations.
a Total includes funding provided by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009.
b The Elderly Nutrition Program total also includes funding for the
Nutrition Services Incentive Program.
c This figure is a Fiscal Year 2014 appropriation reported by the
agency.
In Fiscal Year 2014, the five largest food assistance programs--
SNAP, the National School Lunch Program, the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the School
Breakfast Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program--accounted
for 96 percent of total spending on the 18 programs. SNAP, the largest
program, accounted for more than 70 percent of the overall spending
total (see Fig. 1). The largest five food assistance programs are all
entitlement programs--except for WIC--meaning that, by law, they must
provide benefits to all applicants that meet eligibility requirements.
This means that participation and benefits for these programs are not
capped, unlike programs that are appropriated specific spending
amounts, such as the Commodity Supplemental Food Program or the Elderly
Nutrition Program.
Figure 1: Percentage of Food Assistance Spending by Program in Fiscal
Year 2014
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: GAO analysis of Fiscal Year 2016 Congressional budget
justifications to the relevant agencies. GAO-15-606T.
Federal spending on the food assistance programs has increased by
about $40 billion since we issued our 2010 report, primarily due to
increased spending on SNAP. Figure 2 shows Federal spending on the five
largest food assistance programs over the last 20 years. Spending on
SNAP increased substantially following the recession of 2007-2009.
Between Fiscal Year 2007 and Fiscal Year 2013, Federal spending on SNAP
more than doubled, due primarily to increased program participation
following the recession. Over this time period, the number of SNAP
participants almost doubled from about 26 million to 48 million. In
addition, part of the growth in spending can be attributed to
temporarily higher benefit amounts established by the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).\2\ Spending on SNAP
recently declined by about nine percent from Fiscal Year 2013 to Fiscal
Year 2014 as the number of participants decreased and the temporary
increase in benefits expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115. The Recovery Act provided
more than $21 billion for food assistance programs. These funds
included a USDA estimated $20.1 billion for SNAP, in the form of
increased benefits and state administrative expenses; $500 million for
WIC; $100 million for equipment assistance for child nutrition
programs; $150 million for The Emergency Food Assistance Program; $100
million for the Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program; and
$100 million for the Elderly Nutrition Program and Grants to American
Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Organizations for Nutrition
and Supportive Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2: Federal Spending on the Five Largest Food Assistance Programs
from Fiscal Year 1995 to 2014, Adjusted to 2014 Dollars
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
data on program costs. GAO-15-606T.
Federal food assistance programs provide different types of food
benefits to address a variety of needs through a decentralized service
delivery structure of Federal, state, and local agencies and nonprofit
organizations. In our 2010 report, we identified 18 food assistance
programs administered by three Federal agencies. Fifteen of the
programs are administered by USDA, one program is administered by the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Emergency Management
Agency, and two programs are administered by the Health and Human
Services' (HHS) Administration on Aging (see Table 2).
Table 2: Selected Federal Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs, by Agency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Target population Benefit type Participation (approx.) a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA
========================================================================================================================================================
Child and Adult Care Children in certain nonresidential child Reimburse local providers (child care An average of 3.6 million children and
Food Program care centers, family, or group day care; centers, adult day care centers, etc.) adults were served daily in Fiscal Year
children in after school programs in low- for meals and snacks served. 2014.
income areas, or residing in emergency
shelters; and chronically impaired
disabled adults and persons 60 years or
older in adult day care centers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Supplemental Low-income persons 60 years or older. Supplemental foods, in the form of USDA An average of 573,703 people were served
Food Program Low-income pregnant, postpartum, and commodities, are provided in food monthly in Fiscal Year 2014, including
breastfeeding women, infants, children packages to individuals. 9,996 women, infants, and children, and
up to age 6 who were receiving benefits 563,707 elderly participants.
as of February 6, 2014 can continue to
receive assistance until they are no
longer eligible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Food Projects Low-income individuals in participating Matching grants made to organizations to 26 projects were funded in Fiscal Year
Competitive Grant communities. plan and implement projects to improve 2013.
Program access of low-income community members
to food/nutrition, increase the self-
reliance of communities in providing for
their own needs, and promote
comprehensive responses to local food,
farm, and nutrition issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Distribution American Indian and non-Indian households Food is provided to qualifying An average of 85,400 participants were
Program on Indian that reside on a reservation and Indian households. served monthly in Fiscal Year 2014.
Reservations households living in an otherwise
designated area, and recognized as
having inadequate income and resources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Fruit and Elementary school children in designated Reimburse local providers (elementary Students in more than 7,100 schools
Vegetable Program schools with a high percentage of schools) for fresh fruit and vegetable during the 2011-2012 school year.
students eligible for free or reduced snacks served free to students outside
priced meals. of breakfast or lunch periods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National School Lunch Students from families with incomes below Cash grants and food donations are An average of 30.3 million students were
Program 130 percent of the Federal poverty level provided to reimburse local providers served daily in Fiscal Year 2014.
(or from families receiving SNAP) (schools) for meals and snacks served.
qualify for free meals, and students Schools must agree to serve free and
from families with incomes below 185 reduced price meals to eligible
percent of the Federal poverty level children.
qualify for reduced price meals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutrition Assistance for Needy persons residing in the Benefits provided to households or An average 1.35 million individuals were
Puerto Rico Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. individuals for food purchase through an served monthly in Fiscal Year 2014.
electronic benefit transfer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Breakfast Program Eligible children in schools and Reimburse local providers (schools and An average of 13.5 million students were
residential child care institutions. residential child care institutions) for served daily in Fiscal Year 2014.
Children whose families meet income breakfasts served.
eligibility guidelines qualify for free
or reduced price breakfasts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Farmers' Market Low-income seniors. Benefits can be used to purchase fresh 835,795 low-income seniors were served
Nutrition Program fruits, vegetables, and herbs at in Fiscal Year 2013.
authorized farmers' markets, roadside
stands, and community supported
agriculture programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Milk Program Children in schools, high school grade or Formula grant, reimbursing cost of milk 3,868 schools, non-residential child
under, childcare institutions, and for children in schools, camps, and care institutions, and summer camps
similar nonprofit institutions that do other programs that do not participate participated and 49.9 million \1/2\
not participate in other Federal meal in other child nutrition programs. pints were served in Fiscal Year 2014.
service programs, including the National
School Lunch or School Breakfast
Programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer Food Service Children from needy areas during summer Reimburse local providers (schools, During July 2014, 2.63 million children
Program break or when schools are closed for government agencies, and nonprofit participated on an average day.
vacation. organizations) for meals and snacks
served in programs during breaks in
school year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplemental Nutrition Low-income households with gross income Benefits provided to households through An average of 46.3 million people were
Assistance Program at or below 130 percent of Federal electronic debit card for food purchase served monthly in Fiscal Year 2014.
(SNAP) poverty level or net income at or below in participating retail stores.
100 percent of the poverty level and
with limited resources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emergency Food Needy individuals, such as those who may Commodity foods are distributed through USDA entitlement and bonus commodity
Assistance Program be homeless or participate in welfare state agencies to food banks and other foods valued at over $566 million
programs. agencies, which provide food to local delivered to states for distribution in
organizations, such as soup kitchens and Fiscal Year 2014.
food pantries, or directly provide the
foods to needy households.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Supplemental Low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and Check, voucher, or electronic benefit An average of 8.3 million women,
Nutrition Program for postpartum women, infants, and children transfer benefits provided to recipients infants, and children were served
Women, Infants, and to age 5 determined to be at nutritional pay for supplemental foods, and provide monthly in Fiscal Year 2014.
Children (WIC) risk. nutrition education and health care
referrals for participants. Some state
agencies distribute WIC foods directly
to recipients through warehouses or home
delivery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WIC Farmers' Market WIC participants and those on a waiting Coupons provided for purchase of fresh An average of 1.6 million women,
Nutrition Program list to receive WIC benefits (lower- fruits and vegetables at certified infants, and children were served in
income pregnant, breastfeeding, and farmers markets. Fiscal Year 2013.
postpartum women, infants, and children
to age 5, who are at nutritional risk).
========================================================================================================================================================
DHS Federal Emergency Management Agency
========================================================================================================================================================
Emergency Food and Families and individuals in need of Funds provided to private and independent More than 52 million meals were provided
Shelter National Board assistance. nonprofit or public organizations (such in Fiscal Year 2014.
Program as community action agencies, food
banks, and food pantries) to provide
emergency food and shelter to families
and individuals in need of assistance.
========================================================================================================================================================
HHS Administration on Aging
========================================================================================================================================================
Elderly Nutrition Individuals 60 years of age and older and Supports the provision of nutritious More than 830,000 individuals received
Program: Home-Delivered their spouses, especially those with the meals (with education and other home-delivered meals and 1.6 million
and Congregate greatest social or economic need, and in services) served in a congregate setting seniors received congregate meals in
Nutrition Services certain cases, under age 60 if the or delivered to the home, if individual Fiscal Year 2013.
individual is disabled and accompanies is homebound.
an older individual to meals. Special
focus is given to those with greatest
economic or social need, including low-
income minorities and those residing in
rural areas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants to American American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Grants are provided to tribal 25,192 American Indian elders received
Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiians who are at least 60 organizations to fund services including home-delivered meals and 52,137
and Native Hawaiian years old and their spouses (or those nutrition and supportive services, received congregate meals in Fiscal
organizations for designated as ``older Indian'' by tribal similar to those in the Elderly Year 2013.
nutrition and authorities). Nutrition Program: Home-Delivered and
supportive services Congregate Nutrition Services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO review of agency documents GAO-15-606T.
a Participation information varies by program because some programs provide benefits to individuals while others provide a service or meal.
In 2010, research that we reviewed suggested that participation in
seven of the programs, including four of the five largest--WIC, the
National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, and SNAP--
was associated with positive health and nutrition outcomes. These
outcomes are consistent with most of these programs' goals, including
raising the level of nutrition among low-income households,
safeguarding the health and well-being of the nation's children,
improving the health of Americans, and strengthening the agricultural
economy. Table 3 summarizes selected goals of these seven programs. In
our 2010 report, we found that little was known about the effectiveness
of the remaining 11 programs because they had not been well-studied.
Table 3: Summary of Selected Program Goals for Seven Food Assistance
Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Summary of selected program goals a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WIC Improve the mental and
physical health of low-income
pregnant, postpartum, and
breastfeeding women, infants, and
young children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National School Lunch Program Safeguard the health and well-
being of the nation's children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Breakfast Program Safeguard the health and well-
being of the nation's children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP Raise the level of nutrition
among low-income households.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elderly Nutrition Program: Home- Reduce hunger and food
Delivered and Congregate insecurity.
Nutrition Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Fund nutrition assistance
Rico programs for needy people in Puerto
Rico.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Milk Program Encourage consumption of fluid
milk by U.S. children in nonprofit
schools, high school grade and under,
that don't participate in Federal meal
service programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO review of relevant Federal laws and discussions with agency
officials. GAO-15-606T.
a Each Federal food and nutrition assistance program has its own set of
program goals that were generally established in legislation. Program
goals were compiled based on our review of Federal statutes or
discussions with agency officials. Program goals were not always
formally identified as program goals in the statutes, and in those
cases we analyzed language from the statutes that we determined
closely approximated program goals. While we determined that this list
of program goals was sufficient for purposes of this report, we do not
consider it a comprehensive list of all of the applicable goals for
each program.
The System of Multiple Programs and Agencies That Provide Food
Assistance Can Result in Overlap and Inefficiency
As we reported in 2010, Federal food assistance is provided through
a decentralized system that involves multiple Federal, state, and local
providers. Three Federal agencies, numerous state government agencies,
as well as many different types of local providers--including county
government agencies and private nonprofit organizations--play a role in
providing Federal food assistance through the 18 programs we reviewed.
This decentralized network of programs emerged piecemeal over many
decades to address a variety of targeted needs. For example, WIC dates
back to the 1960s when a White House Conference recommended that
special attention be given to the nutritional needs of low-income
pregnant women and preschool children. The Emergency Food Assistance
Program was created to utilize excess Federal food inventories and
assist states with storage costs while helping the needy, and the
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program was established to
provide assistance to the homeless.
During our 2010 review, agency officials and local providers told
us that the multiple food assistance programs help to increase access
to food for vulnerable populations. Specifically, some officials and
providers told us that the diversity of food assistance programs can
help ensure that individuals in need of assistance have access to at
least one program. For example, some individuals may prefer to pick up
a bag of groceries from a food bank rather than complete the
application process to receive SNAP benefits. Individuals in rural
areas may find it easier to receive food assistance through commodities
from the Commodity Supplemental Food Program or other programs, as a
lack of local grocery stores can make it difficult to use SNAP
benefits. In addition, the availability of multiple programs within a
community can also increase the likelihood that eligible individuals
seeking benefits from one program will be referred to other appropriate
programs.
However, the Federal food assistance structure--with its 18
programs--shows signs of program overlap, which can create unnecessary
work and waste administrative resources, resulting in inefficiency. We
found that some food assistance programs provide comparable benefits to
a similar population, but are managed separately, which could be a
potentially inefficient use of Federal funds. Specifically, we found
that:
Six programs--the National School Lunch Program, the School
Breakfast Program, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, the
Summer Food Service Program, the Special Milk Program, and the
Child and Adult Care Food Program--all provide food to eligible
children in settings outside the home, such as at school, day
care, or summer day camps.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Elderly
Nutrition Program target older Americans.
Individuals eligible for groceries through the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program are generally eligible for groceries
through the Emergency Food Assistance Program and for SNAP.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency Food and
Shelter National Board Program and USDA's Emergency Food
Assistance Program both provide groceries and prepared meals to
needy individuals through local government and nonprofit
entities.
The Summer Food Service Program is similar to the Summer
Seamless Option of the National School Lunch Program.
We have previously concluded that program overlap--having multiple
programs provide comparable benefits to similar target populations--is
an inefficient use of Federal funds.\3\ Like other social service
programs, most food assistance programs have specific and often complex
administrative procedures that Federal, state, and local organizations
follow to help manage each program's resources and provide assistance.
Government agencies and local organizations dedicate staff time and
resources to separately manage the programs even when a number of the
programs are providing comparable benefits to similar groups and could
potentially be consolidated. Previous GAO work indicates that combining
programs could reduce administrative expenses by eliminating
duplicative efforts, such as eligibility determination and data
reporting.\4\ Such actions could improve efficiency and save
administrative dollars, but could also make it more difficult to
achieve the goals of targeting service to specific populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GAO/HEHS-95-139 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-95-139).
\4\ See GAO, Food Assistance: USDA's Multiprogram Approach, GAO/
RCED-94-33 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-94-33) (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 24, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, we recommended the Secretary of Agriculture identify and
develop methods for addressing potential inefficiencies among food
assistance programs and reducing unnecessary overlap among the smaller
programs while ensuring that those who are eligible receive the
assistance they need. More recently, the USDA Office of Inspector
General determined that USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), which
administers USDA's domestic food assistance programs, could potentially
achieve cost savings by taking actions to eliminate duplication and
overlap in its nutrition assistance programs.\5\ The Office of
Inspector General recommended that FNS document the requirements for
conducting a study to determine the extent of overlap and duplication
in its programs and determine whether additional funding is necessary
to complete this work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For more information, see: USDA Office of Inspector General,
Overlap and Duplication in Food and Nutrition Service's Nutrition
Programs, Audit Report 27001-0001-10 (June 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA partially addressed our recommendation by commissioning a
study in 2013 on the feasibility and potential cost to assess the
extent of overlap and duplication among all nutrition assistance
programs administered by USDA. This study concluded that collecting
information specifically targeting overlaps with smaller programs would
not be cost-effective. As a result, USDA decided to focus on the
nutritional impacts of overlap among the six largest programs: the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the National School Lunch
Program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children, the School Breakfast Program, the Child and Adult Care
Food Program, and the Summer Food Service Program. The research
proposed in the feasibility study will examine the impact of
participation in multiple food assistance programs on the nutritional
status of participants. While we agree such a study will provide
important information, it does not address our recommendation. We
believe that further action is needed to identify cost-effective
approaches to address potential inefficiencies and unnecessary overlap
among domestic food assistance programs. For example, we continue to
believe that it would be beneficial for USDA to convene a group of
experts (consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act) that
includes representatives of the food assistance programs, state
representatives, and local providers to discuss potential
inefficiencies and overlap among the programs and develop proposals to
address them. We believe that over time, such an effort could achieve
cost savings.
In conclusion, the Federal Government spends billions of dollars
every year to support a food assistance structure that benefits
millions of Americans, but there are signs of potential overlap and
inefficiency among its programs. While research indicates that the
largest programs have positive outcomes consistent with their program
goals, limited research on most of the smaller programs makes it
difficult to determine whether these are filling an important gap or
whether they are unnecessarily duplicating functions and services of
other programs. To ensure the most efficient use of resources, it will
be important for Federal agencies to explore cost-effective approaches
for addressing potential inefficiencies and unnecessary overlap and
duplication among all of the nation's food assistance programs.
Chairwoman Walorski, Ranking Member McGovern, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer
any questions you might have.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements
If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony,
please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or [email protected]. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key
contributions to this testimony include Kathy Larin, Assistant
Director; James Bennett, Julianne Hartman Cutts, Andrea Dawson, Alex
Galuten, Kirsten Lauber, Rhiannon Patterson, Cathy Roark, and Kate van
Gelder.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Brown.
Dr. Rachidi, you may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ANGELA K. RACHIDI, Ph.D., RESEARCH
FELLOW IN POVERTY STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE
INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. Rachidi. Thank you, Chairwoman Walorski, Ranking Member
McGovern, and other Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify this afternoon on government
duplication and unmet needs in Federal food assistance
programs.
My name is Angela Rachidi, and I am currently a Research
Fellow in poverty studies at the American Enterprise Institute,
or AEI. I recently joined AEI after spending almost a decade
working for the New York City Human Resources Administration,
or HRA, the past 6 of which I served as the Deputy Commissioner
for Policy Research and Evaluation.
HRA is New York City's main social service agency and
administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
SNAP, and Emergency Food Program, along with other income
support programs.
My comments today draw from this experience and focus on
concerns about duplication, inefficiencies, and burdens that
are created by the complexity of our food assistance programs.
The main points I will make are: first, duplication and
inefficiencies do exist in these programs as they are currently
administered. The decentralized nature of the current system
means that knowledge about families is lost, and families are
ultimately hurt because the system is not set up to treat them
holistically and government dollars are wasted.
Before I address these specific points, however, I want to
emphasize that the Federal Government's food assistance
programs are an important part of our nation's safety net, and
research shows that they do improve the health and nutrition of
low-income families and provide very important needed support.
However, given the large investments in food assistance
programs at the Federal level, finding ways to increase
efficiencies is critical.
As I said, first there are inefficiencies built into the
current system. In New York City, food assistance programs are
administered by different agencies, and the result is that each
agency must determine eligibility and administer benefits
separately. This means that the process can happen more than
one time, depending on how many programs a family participates
in.
And not only is this duplication inefficient from a
government perspective, but it also affects these families. A
sizeable number of households with low food security
participate in more than one food assistance program, which can
be unnecessarily burdensome on them when programs are not
coordinated.
Some coordination across programs already exists, such as
with categorical eligibility. However, I urge caution on some
of these efforts as a recent GAO report on the School Meals
Program found that errors are common. The interest in reducing
the burden must be balanced with the need for quality control
and program integrity.
In addition to eligibility determination, there are three
other areas where coordination or consolidation may be
appropriate, including setting nutrition standards, approving
and monitoring retailers, and nutrition education programming.
At the Federal level, different nutrition guidelines and
standards exist for different programs. Consolidating efforts
around setting and monitoring nutrition guidelines should be
explored. Approving and monitoring retailers in SNAP and the
WIC Program also operate out of different levels of government.
The extent to which this duplication creates inefficiency
should also be explored more, and areas for consolidation
should be identified.
Nutrition education programming is another area that
deserves attention. In New York City two agencies provide very
similar nutrition education programs to very similar
populations, one through HRA, and the other through the
Department of Health. Consolidating these efforts could also
reduce administrative inefficiencies.
A fragmented system also means that information is lost,
information about how the families are being served as well as
the nutritional programs themselves. Government agencies tend
to operate in a silo, and this was true in New York City, which
means information is not shared with families about other
programs. An uncoordinated system also makes it more difficult
to share information on participating households, which
increases the opportunity for error, fraud, and abuse.
A better system would be to consolidate programs that share
the same goals and coordinate programs across governing bodies
with a focus on the person and the household. This will save
the government money and reduce the burden on participating
families. I provided three specific examples where coordination
could be beneficial--setting nutrition guidelines, authorizing
retailers, and administering nutrition education programs--as
well as reducing the inefficiencies in eligibility
determination that I described earlier.
The extent to which we can limit the burden on staff and on
families by better consolidating and coordinating food
assistance programs, the better these families will be served
and the better the government's money will be spent.
Thank you, and I can respond to any questions that you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rachidi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Angela K. Rachidi, Ph.D., Research 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Food Assistance Programs: Better Coordination Will Help
Households and Save Government Dollars
Chairwoman Walorski, Ranking Member McGovern, and other Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this
afternoon on government duplication and unmet needs in Federal food
assistance programs.
My name is Angela Rachidi and I am currently a Research Fellow in
poverty studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). I recently
joined AEI after spending almost a decade working for the New York City
Human Resources Administration or HRA, the past 6 of which I served as
the Deputy Commissioner for Policy Research and Evaluation. HRA is New
York City's main social service agency and administers the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and emergency food program, along
with other income support programs.
During my time at HRA, I conducted numerous studies of SNAP and how
it affected New York City households. I have extensive knowledge of the
broader context of food assistance programs and the interrelation with
SNAP. My comments today draw from this experience and focus on concerns
about duplication, inefficiencies, and burdens that are created by the
complexity of our nation's food assistance programs.
The main points I will make are: (1) duplication and inefficiency
do exist in these programs as they are currently administered, (2) the
decentralized nature of the current system means that knowledge about
how to help families with their food needs is lost, and (3) families
are ultimately hurt because the system is not set up to treat them
holistically and likely requires more government dollars to administer
than is necessary.
Before I address these specific points, I want to emphasize that
the Federal Government's food assistance programs are an important part
of our nation's safety net. Research shows that these programs improve
the health and nutrition of low-income families and provide needed
resources to many households.\1\ Spending on food assistance programs
has grown substantially over the past 3 decades, most dramatically in
the past several years, in absolute terms as well as relative to other
means-tested programs. The figure below shows that spending on food and
nutrition assistance has grown 78 percent in the past 10 years, while
the earned income tax credit increased 46 percent, and SSI increased 23
percent. While this growth is projected to slow, spending is not
expected to return to prior levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the GAO Domestic Food Assistance Report, April 2010, http:/
/www.gao.gov/assets/310/303151.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Spending on Food and Nutrition Assistance Compared to Other
Means-Tested Programs: FY 1976-2020 (estimated)
In Constant Dollars (2009$)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget Historical
Tables, Table 8.6--Outlays for Mandatory and Related Programs
in Constant (FY 2009) Dollars: 1962-2020.
The costs in this figure reflect benefit costs, but a report by the
USDA's Economic Research Service in 2008 analyzed administrative costs
for SNAP (then the Food Stamp Program), WIC, and the School Lunch
program and compared them to other means-tested programs. It found that
administrative costs for SNAP were 15.8 per each benefit dollar
administered, close to 20 per dollar administered for WIC, and 2 to
14 for the school lunch program.\2\ In addition, a study by Julian
Alston with the University of California-Davis found that six percent
of the USDA's SNAP budget was spent on administration in 2009, while 28
percent of Federal spending on WIC was for administration (Alston, J.,
2011).\3\ With administrative costs shared by states, this spending did
not include the state and local contribution. Alston also found that
the Federal Government's share of administrative costs for child
nutrition programs in 2009 was $173 million. This highlights the
significant investment by the Federal Government in administering food
assistance programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ERS Report, The Cost of Benefit Delivery in the Food Stamp
Program, a Cross-program Analysis, http://www.brookings.edu/ /media/
research/files/reports/2008/3/food-stamp-isaacs/
03_food_stamp_isaacs.pdf.
\3\ https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/-us-food-and-
nutrition-programs-costs-effectiveness-and-impact-on-
obesity_092514480719.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the large investment in food assistance programs at the
Federal level, finding ways to increase efficiencies is critical.
Consolidating and better coordinating programs to save on
administrative costs and serve households more effectively is an
important area for examination. With that, I make the following key
points.
First, there are inefficiencies built into the current system for
both the government and the families served by them. In New York City,
SNAP, WIC, school food programs, and child and adult care programs are
all administered by different agencies and the result is that each
agency must determine eligibility and administer benefits separately.
The GAO report on this topic from 2010 indicated that New York City was
not unique in this way. For SNAP and many of the other programs,
determining eligibility requires staff to accept and process
information from applying households, enter this information into data
systems, conduct interviews with clients, and make a determination
about eligibility. The way the current system is structured, this
process can happen more than one time depending on how many programs
the household participates in.
Not only is duplication inefficient from a government perspective,
but it also affects families. According to the 2010 GAO report on this
topic, almost 40 percent of households with low food security that
participated in one of the three largest Federal food assistance
programs, participated in more than one. Not only does duplication in
determining eligibility mean more administrative staff, but the effort
that is required of families can be unnecessarily burdensome.
Because these programs are often operated by different agencies
with different oversight, the data systems involved are also different.
This creates complexities around data sharing for administrative
purposes and makes reporting similar outcomes across programs more
difficult. Better coordination would also mean better data and reduced
burden on administrative agencies for reporting.
Some coordination across programs already exists. For example, in
New York City data sharing between administering agencies results in
automatic enrollment of SNAP student recipients into the school lunch
program. And a universal breakfast program (partially funded by the
City) takes care of duplication between that program and others.
Categorical eligibility efforts such as these, which is when
participation in one food program satisfies income eligibility
requirements for another program, reduces some of the administrative
burden associated with a decentralized system. However, I would urge
caution on some of these categorical eligibility efforts. A recent GAO
report on the school meals program found that errors are common. In an
unrepresentative sample of 25 approved applications for the school
meals program, six indicated categorical eligibility but the GAO found
that two were not eligible at all and one was not eligible for free
lunch, but possibly reduced lunch.\4\ The interest in reducing burden
must be balanced with the need for quality control and program
integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670078.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to eligibility determination, there are three other
areas where coordination or consolidation may be appropriate, including
setting nutrition standards, approving and monitoring retailers, and
nutrition education programming.
At the Federal level, different nutrition guidelines and standards
exist for different programs. For example, there are few restrictions
on what can be purchased with SNAP benefits, but WIC and the National
School Lunch Program have stricter guidelines on what can be purchased
and administered. This sends very different messages about nutrition
and its role in Federal food assistance programs. Consolidating efforts
around setting and monitoring nutrition guidelines should be explored.
Approving and monitoring retailers in SNAP and the WIC program is
another area where coordination could result in efficiencies. SNAP
retailers are approved and monitored at the Federal level, whereas WIC
retailers are authorized at the state level. The extent to which this
duplication creates inefficiencies should be explored and areas for
consolidation should be identified.
Nutrition education programming is another area where consolidation
might increase efficiencies. In New York City, the Department of Social
Services (HRA) administers SNAP-Ed, the nutrition education program
funded through SNAP, with oversight from New York State. These
nutrition education efforts are provided to students in some New York
City Schools, as well as other settings. The City's Health Department
also provides nutrition education for New York City school children
through programs such as the Child and Adult Care Program. The result
is two agencies providing very similar nutrition education programs to
very similar populations. Consolidating these efforts could result in
administrative efficiencies.
The second point I would like to make is related to the information
that is lost due to a fragmented system--information about the families
as well as the nutritional programs themselves. Government agencies
tend to operate in a silo, and this was true in New York City. In New
York, eligibility workers in SNAP offices have very little knowledge of
the programs operated outside of their agency. This means that
information about WIC, school lunch and breakfast programs, as well as
the less visible programs, often are not shared with SNAP applicants or
recipients. This is not efficient for families and it increases the
chance that they will not access benefits they are eligible for.
In addition, an uncoordinated system makes it more difficult to
share information on participating households, which increases the
opportunity for errors, fraud, and abuse. For example, if different
incomes are reported by a household across programs, whether in error
or with fraud in mind, an uncoordinated system is not set up well to
detect these errors.
A better system would be to consolidate programs that share the
same goals and coordinate programs across one or two governing bodies,
with a focus on the person or household. This will save the government
money and reduce the burden on participating families. It may also
improve service delivery to families by ensuring that they are made
aware of all the benefits they are eligible for, as well as limiting
the chance for errors, fraud, and abuse. I provided three specific
examples where coordination could be beneficial--setting nutrition
guidelines, authorizing retailers, and administering nutrition
education programs--and reducing inefficiencies in eligibility
determination should also be explored.
The extent to which we can limit the burden on staff and on
families by better consolidating and coordinating food assistance
programs, the better these families will be served and the better the
government's money will be spent.
Thank you and I can respond to any questions that you may have.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Dr. Rachidi.
Mr. Nader, you may proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH NADER, EXECUTIVE CHEF, LEVY
RESTAURANTS AND DETROIT LIONS; VOLUNTEER CHEF, SHARE OUR
STRENGTH'S COOKING MATTERS, DETROIT, MI
Mr. Nader. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Walorski,
Ranking Member McGovern, and Members of the Committee. I would
like to thank you for the opportunity to share my experience
and views on the importance of the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, or what my family used to call food stamps.
I am the Executive Chef for Levy Restaurants and the
National Football League's Detroit Lions. I am also a Volunteer
Chef with Cooking Matters, a program that teaches nutrition
education and basic cooking skills to low-income families in
the Detroit area. Cooking Matters works as a public-private
partnership, leveraging both SNAP-Ed funds to community
organizations and private funding from companies like Wal-Mart.
As a child, there were many times when things got tough for
my family, as it did for many in the Detroit area in and around
the auto industry in the 1970s and 1980s. There is nothing more
vital to the success of a child than proper nutrition. During
these tough times we would rely on support from programs like
food stamps, free school lunch, and the like. It wasn't always
a long-term need, but there were times that support was needed
for a brief period.
I feel very strongly that success in my life and my career
is directly correlated with the fact that I had nutrition
assistance early in my life. I experienced firsthand how SNAP
and the School Lunch Program worked together to make sure I had
the healthy food I needed both at home and at school.
One of the biggest misconceptions about SNAP is that
families are on it for life. It is most often a temporary
lifeline, as it was for my family. Families on SNAP are
presented with very hard decisions when balancing budgets, from
rent, to child care, and basic needs such as nutrition.
While I received free school lunch, my school didn't offer
school breakfast. This made SNAP even more important to my
family. I saw many of my friends who were coming to school
hungry get stigmatized and labeled as having behavioral
problems which may have been alleviated by a daily nutritious
breakfast and lunch. We now have research that supports what
happened in my classroom. A study by Share Our Strength and
Deloitte found that students who eat school breakfasts score up
to 17.5 percent higher on math tests, miss fewer days of
school, and are more likely to graduate.
I have also personally experienced the stigma of being from
a low-income family. Childhood hunger and food insecurity
crosses many demographics and socioeconomic areas. It is urban,
suburb, and rural. Hunger is the face of many Americans.
As I look back, I realize the fact that my family had the
cooking skills in place to stretch the few dollars that we did
have for the food, and we were able to maximize our SNAP
benefits. This was a driving force for me getting personally
involved in helping others today. I discovered Share our
Strength's Cooking Matters program operating through Gleaners
Community Food Bank in Detroit about 3 years ago. I was
delighted to see such a program that teaches low-income
families nutrition education and basic cooking skills. It made
me think of how many of my friends' families growing up could
have benefited and subsequently maximized their very modest
food budgets. They could have been empowered to shop smarter
and cook healthier on tighter budgets.
I am very fortunate to work for Levy Restaurants and the
Detroit Lions as they are both very active in our communities
and support the work that I do, providing nutrition education
to make sure families are able to maximize their benefits. We
all believe that nothing is more important to child development
than proper access to food and nutrition. We realize that SNAP
is an effective way to give parents the power to feed their
families when times get tough.
In Cooking Matters I see families who get SNAP and school
breakfasts. Parents tell me SNAP works effectively when it
works in tandem with other programs, like school meals. School
breakfast ensures that kids can start their day with a healthy
meal to fuel their brains and help them focus on their lessons
rather than a growling stomach. This allows these parents to
stretch their existing food budgets and SNAP dollars longer
into the month instead of running out.
In this nation, we have enough food, I believe. It is
unacceptable that any child in this great nation could go
hungry. When I was a kid this program allowed me to get the
nutrition I needed to grow up and be a success. We need to
continue to invest in our kids and America's future.
This is a matter of potential. When I look at a child who
is struggling with hunger, I see a potential future doctor, I
see a potential computer programmer, I see a potential future
chef of the Detroit Lions, I see a stronger workforce and a
stronger America. But in order for that to happen, we must
ensure our children are fed. SNAP can help these kids grow up
to achieve these dreams.
For all these reasons I am here to urge you to protect SNAP
funding as it is an effective way to give parents the power to
feed their families when times get tough. I have lived this
personally, and I see it every day in my work in the Detroit
community.
Thank you all so much for your time and attention to this
very important issue. Thank you for the opportunity to come
here today and speak and tell my story. And I welcome any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nader follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph Nader, Executive Chef, Levy Restaurants
and Detroit Lions; Volunteer Chef, Share Our Strength's Cooking
Matters, Detroit, MI
Good afternoon. Chairwoman Walorski, Ranking Member McGovern, and
Members of the Committee. I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to share my experience and views on the importance of the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, or what my family used to call ``food
stamps.'' I am the Executive Chef for Levy Restaurants and The National
Football League's Detroit Lions. I am also a volunteer Chef with
Cooking Matters, a program that teaches nutrition education and basic
cooking skills to low-income families in the Detroit area. Cooking
Matters works as a public-private partnership, leveraging both SNAP-Ed
funds to community organizations and private funding from companies
like Wal-Mart.
As a child, there were times when things got very tough for my
family, as it did for many families that worked in and around the auto
industry in Detroit in the 1970's and 1980's. There is nothing more
vital to the success of a child than proper nutrition. During these
tough times, we would rely on support from programs like food stamps,
free school lunch and the like. It wasn't always a long term need, but
there were many times that support was needed, for a brief period. I
feel very strongly that my success in life and my career is directly
correlated with the fact that I had nutrition assistance early in my
life. I experienced firsthand how SNAP and the school lunch program
worked together to make sure I had the healthy food I needed both at
home and at school.
I think one of the biggest misconceptions about SNAP is that
families are on it for life. It is most often a temporary lifeline, as
it was for my family. Families on SNAP are presented with very hard
decisions when balancing budgets from rent to child care and basic
needs such as nutrition.
While I received free school lunch, my school didn't offer school
breakfast. This made SNAP even more important to my family. I saw many
of my friends who were coming to school hungry get stigmatized and
labeled as having behavioral problems, which may be been alleviated by
daily, nutritious breakfast and lunch. We now have research that
supports what happened in my classroom. A study by Share Our Strength
and Deloitte found that students who eat school breakfast score up to
17.5 percent higher on math tests, miss fewer days of school, and are
more likely to graduate.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Deloitte and Share Our Strength. ``Ending Childhood Hunger: A
Social Impact Analysis.'' 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have also personally experienced the stigmatization of being from
a low-income family. Childhood hunger, and food insecurity crosses many
demographics and socioeconomic areas. It is urban, suburban and rural .
. . hunger is the face of many Americans.
As I look back, I realize the fact that my family had the cooking
skills in place to stretch the few dollars that we had for food and
were able to maximize our SNAP benefits. This was a driving force for
getting personally involved in helping others today. I discovered Share
our Strength's Cooking Matters program, operating at Gleaners Community
Food Bank in Detroit, about 3 years ago. I was delighted to see a
program that teaches low income families nutrition education and basic
cooking skills. It made me think of how many of my friends' families
growing up could have benefited, and subsequently maximized their very
modest food budgets. They could have been empowered to shop smarter and
cook healthier meals on tight budgets.
Cooking Matters ensures that families have the knowledge to use
their SNAP dollars efficiently. After taking the course, families are
more likely to buy whole grains and more fruits and vegetables.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Altarum Institute. ``Cooking Matters at the Store Evaluation.''
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am very fortunate to work for Levy Restaurants and The Detroit
Lions. They both are very active in our communities, and support the
work that I do as part of Cooking Matters. We all believe that nothing
is more important to child development than proper access to food and
nutrition. We realize that SNAP is an effective way to give parents the
power to feed their families when times get tough.
In Cooking Matters, I see families who get SNAP and school
breakfast. Parents tell me SNAP works effectively when it works in
tandem with other programs, like school meals because the SNAP benefits
are simply not enough to feed a family for an entire month. To end
childhood hunger in this nation, we need to ensure that children are
successfully getting three healthy meals each day. School breakfast
ensures that kids can start their days with a healthy meal to fuel
their brains and help them focus on their lessons, rather than on a
growling stomach. This allows these parents to stretch their SNAP
dollars longer into the month instead of running out. This way, even
when budgets are extremely tight, kids are getting the healthy food
they need where they live and where they learn. In effect, these
programs become different rungs on the ladder of economic mobility for
children.
This is a matter of potential. When I look at a child who's
struggling with hunger, I see a potential future doctor. I see a
potential future computer coder. I see a potential future chef of the
Detroit Lions. But in order for that to happen, we must ensure our
children are fed. SNAP can help these kids grow up to achieve these
dreams.
I have taught many Cooking Matters courses throughout the last 3
years. I have seen the tears and the smiles on children's faces
throughout the 6 week program. I have seen them get so excited to learn
nutrition and cooking skills, and to share this information with their
families. I have heard them tell me how much the program has changed
their lives, and how they now make healthy decisions. I have also been
delighted to have many of the kids tell me that after the Cooking
Matters program they would like to go to culinary school and become
chefs! Nutrition education alone can't solve the hunger crisis in
America. We need to have strong programs like SNAP, WIC, and school
meals to support families when they are going through hard times and
nutrition education to make sure they are able to maximize those
benefits.
For all of these reasons, I'm here to urge you to protect SNAP
funding, as it is an effective way to give parents the power to feed
their families when times get tough. I have lived this personally, and
see it every day in my work in the Detroit community.
SNAP matters . . . Cooking Matters . . . Children Matter!
Thank you all so much for your time and attention to this very
important issue.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Nader.
Ms. Tussler, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF SHERRIE TUSSLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUNGER TASK
FORCE, MILWAUKEE, WI
Ms. Tussler. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I
am Sherrie Tussler. For the past 17 years I have been employed
as the Executive Director of Hunger Task Force in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. Our anti-hunger public policy organization operates
a food bank, a farm, and a self-service welfare office. We
administer the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program, the Emergency Food and Shelter
Program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Education
and Outreach Programs. We also organize a nationally recognized
summer meals collaboration.
I know most of the Federal nutrition programs very well,
and I serve as an issue expert on the Federal Commodity and
Funding Programs, as well as SNAP and the Summer Food Service
Program in my home state. I understand how the Federal
nutrition programs are supposed to work and how they actually
work. I work directly with children, adults, and seniors in
need of the programs and who, in fact, rely upon them to meet
their very basic needs.
I have grown accustomed to explaining the reach and the
limits of the Federal nutrition assistance programs. I have
convinced donors to substantially backfill these programs what
these programs don't provide. And although I laud the intent of
most of the programs, I also see their limits as an
embarrassment to the government and the people. I surely
believe that there is enough food, healthy food, in the United
States to feed every single one of its citizens.
I know that you have concerns that the Federal nutrition
programs are duplicative. You want to save tax dollars and
create efficiencies. But what I see is a patchwork of
underfunded programs layered around the shortfalls of SNAP and
the National School Lunch Program. And while these programs
serve certain populations well, they also fall short of their
intent due to limits of funding or regulation.
For instance, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program is
over-regulated and so influenced by its budget that its program
intent is regularly distorted. It mandates what seniors can
eat, but its budget doesn't match the mandates. As a result,
seniors get food that they can't or do not want to eat.
The Child and Adult Care Food Care Program doesn't allow
youth 13 and older to have supper, while the Summer Food
Service Program will, but only if they hadn't had lunch. This
is a cost-savings measure that leaves older siblings of younger
children without food in after school programs.
Although we know the value of fresh foods in our diet,
commodity foods aren't fresh. The foods doled our to food
banks, school meal programs, and seniors are canned, boxed, and
bagged as a cost-savings measure. Milk is instantized, and
chicken leg quarters come in 20 pound bags.
SNAP is under a great deal of scrutiny for serving able-
bodied adults. Do we really need to explain why able-bodied
adults need food? There are lawmakers in my state who would
invest the very tax dollars they seek to save in illegal and
costly drug testing, photo identification for SNAP, and current
work requirements will result in a loss of food-buying power
under SNAP for up to 3 years for 67,000 people in Wisconsin
alone.
Somehow we have determined that punishing people with
hunger will motivate them towards work. Hunger doesn't
motivate. It dulls and it makes people sick.
As you consider these programs, remember that all children
should be fed when they are in our care and it is mealtime.
Teenagers are children. They equally merit a healthy diet.
Home-delivered boxes of food for seniors should include food
they can and should eat. If we can't fulfill this promise, we
should provide seniors with SNAP benefits sufficient to be
healthy. In my opinion, the balance between agricultural price
supports and the intent of the Federal commodity programs is
tipped in favor of food producers and must be rebalanced.
What works? SNAP. SNAP is the one program that makes the
most sense to me. It supplies food-buying power that stimulates
our economy. It normalizes and humanizes how people get food
when they need help. SNAP is not dictatorial. It lets you shop
for food you prefer, and its limits are practical. SNAP is not
bound by age or who it can serve. Unlike all of the other
Federal nutrition programs, SNAP doesn't make you the victim of
over-regulation.
What else works? The Community Eligibility Provision. It
creates dignified access to all children for school meals.
Your concern for program duplication should be balanced
with the knowledge that the Federal nutrition programs do not
meet the need. Funding for these programs is wholly inadequate,
and the evidence of this is the billions of dollars that
private sector plows into buoying their shortfalls. Food banks,
soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and food pantries feed
millions of hungry Americans shorted by these programs.
And no matter how reputable, food banks are a scourge on
our nation's reputation. We should put them out of business
because the grocery store is where food comes from and the most
dignified way to get it is to buy it with your wages. The day
we no longer need food banks is the day that we end hunger in
America, and I believe that together we can.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tussler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sherrie Tussler, Executive Director, Hunger Task
Force, Milwaukee, WI
Thank you for inviting me to testify today.
I am Sherrie Tussler.
For the past 17 years, I have been employed as the Executive
Director of Hunger Task Force in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Our anti-hunger
public policy organization operates a food bank, a farm and a self-
service welfare office. We administer The Emergency Food Assistance
Program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, the Emergency Food
and Shelter Program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Education and Outreach programs. We also organize a nationally-
recognized summer meals collaboration.
I know most of the Federal nutrition programs well and serve as an
issue expert on these Federal commodity and funding programs, as well
as SNAP and the Summer Food Service Program in my home state. I
understand how the Federal nutrition programs are supposed to work and
how they actually work. I work directly with children, adults and
seniors in need of the programs, who, in fact, rely upon them to meet
their basic needs.
I have grown accustomed to explaining the reach and limits of the
Federal nutrition assistance programs. I have convinced donors to
substantially backfill what these programs don't provide. And although
I laude the intent of most of these programs, I also see their limits
as an embarrassment to government and the People. Surely, I believe
that there is enough healthy food in the United States to feed every
one of its citizens.
I know that you have concern that the Federal nutrition programs
are duplicative. You want to save tax dollars and create efficiencies.
What I see is a patchwork of underfunded programs layered around the
shortfalls of SNAP and the National School Lunch Program. And while
these programs serve certain populations well, they also fall short of
their intent due to limits of funding or regulation.
For instance, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program is over-
regulated and so influenced by its budget, that its program intent is
regularly distorted. It mandates what seniors can eat, but its budget
doesn't match the mandates. As a result, seniors get foods they can't
eat or may not want.
The Child and Adult Care Food Program doesn't allow youth 13 and
older to have supper while the Summer Food Service Program will--but
only if they haven't had lunch. This is a cost savings measure that
leaves the older siblings of younger children without food in after
school programs.
Although we all know the value of fresh foods in our diet,
commodity foods are not fresh. The foods doled out to food banks,
school meal programs and seniors are canned, boxed and bagged as a cost
savings measure. Milk is instantized and chicken leg quarters come in
20 pound bags.
SNAP is under a great deal of scrutiny for serving able-bodied
adults. Do we really need to explain why able-bodied adults without
children need food? There are lawmakers in my state who would invest
the very tax dollars they seek to save in illegal and costly drug
testing and photo identification for people using SNAP. Current work
requirements will result in loss of food buying power under SNAP for up
to 3 years for 67,000 people in Wisconsin alone.
Somehow we have determined that punishing people with hunger will
motivate them towards employment.
Hunger doesn't motivate. It dulls and makes people sick.
As you consider these programs remember that all children should be
fed when they are in our care and it is meal time. Teenagers are
children. They equally merit a healthy diet.
Home-delivered boxes of food for seniors should include food they
can and should eat.
If we can't fulfill this promise, we should provide seniors with
SNAP benefits sufficient to be healthy. In my opinion, the balance
between agricultural price supports and the intent of Federal commodity
programs has tipped in favor of food producers and must be rebalanced.
What works? SNAP.
SNAP is the one program that makes the most sense to me. It
supplies food buying power that stimulates our economy. It normalizes
and humanizes how people get food when they need help. SNAP is non-
dictatorial--it lets you shop for the food you prefer and its limits
are practical. SNAP is not bound by age or whom it can serve. Unlike
all of the other Federal programs, SNAP doesn't make you the victim of
over-regulation.
What else works? The Community Eligibility Provision. It creates
dignified access to all children for school meals.
What doesn't work? The Federal Emergency Management Agency's
administration of the Emergency Food and Shelter Program. Does anyone
know or care that they skipped an entire year of funding emergency
programs? Their management of this program is tragic.
Your concern for program duplication should be balanced with the
knowledge that the Federal nutrition programs do not meet the need.
Funding for these programs is wholly inadequate. The evidence of
this is the billions of dollars that the private sector plows into
buoying their shortfalls.
Food banks, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and food pantries feed
millions of hungry Americans shorted by these programs. And no matter
how reputable, food banks are a scourge on our nation's reputation. We
should put them out of business because the grocery store is where food
comes from, and the most dignified way to get the food is to buy it
with your wages.
The day we no longer need food banks is the day we end hunger in
America. Together we can.
I welcome your questions and am happy to share more information as
requested.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Tussler.
Thank you for all your testimony. We appreciate it. Now we
move to the question portion.
A consistent theme throughout the testimony of our panel
has been the potential for greater administrative efficiency.
So within the United States and the example of New York City,
we have heard there are various agencies administering
nutrition programs to similar populations. This is not only
confusing for the states and localities trying to administer
these programs, but for recipients who are trying to piece
together different forms of nutrition assistance to feed their
families.
The question first to Ms. Brown: Can we improve
administrative efficiency without sacrificing program
integrity? And the second question: Is it a direct trade-off, a
zero-sum game?
Ms. Brown. There was just a report that was released
recently about the School Meals Program that shed some light on
that where it was determined that when children in the School
Meals Program are automatically made eligible because of their
participation in the SNAP program, that the likelihood of error
in their eligibility is much smaller. So, in fact, by sharing
eligibility across those programs, they have decreased the
likelihood of error in that program. So there are some real
possibilities that we can do better even right now.
I do want to say, though, that there is kind of a
cautionary tale here, and that is that sometimes when we have
those automatic eligibility provisions we end up with
unintended consequences that might result in certain program
participants receiving benefits when that may not have been the
intent of Congress. So we have to kind of keep an eye on that
if we are going to do those automatic eligibilities.
The Chairwoman. Yes.
And, Dr. Rachidi, do you have any suggestions on how to
improve administrative efficiency while maintaining the
integrity of the individual program?
Dr. Rachidi. Sure. I actually think that you can achieve
both goals, and I would recommend more data sharing. Ms. Brown
just talked about the data sharing where you have direct
certification using SNAP data for the School Lunch Program.
Areas in the other programs where that type of a model can be
used would be very beneficial.
And also in terms of program integrity, data sharing can
also be used to a greater extent to ensure program integrity,
accessing databases at the Federal level, allowing local
agencies to access databases at the Federal level to verify
income. Things like that can all not only help with
administrative efficiencies, but can also increase program
integrity.
The Chairwoman. When you were in New York City, were there
any Federal barriers while you were operating in that state you
could look at and say this is something that should be tweaked
or could be tweaked or could be helpful in barriers that you
identified?
Dr. Rachidi. Sure. And, again, this was at the city level,
but in terms of the data sharing again, accessing Federal
databases, I am not sure of the particular reasons behind not
accessing some of those data systems, like Social Security
Income data, for example, wasn't accessible, and that would
save a lot of administrative effort trying to track down income
if that database was available to local agencies. So that was
one particular example.
The other is, there is an opportunity now that technology
has made a lot of progress in revisiting some of the
regulations among the USDA in relation to SNAP and how using
technology maybe can fit better with those regulations.
For example, one thing in New York City, we were moving to
online applications for SNAP, which involved a telephone
interview of recipients. And one initial problem was that
recipients had to have a scheduled interview. It did not allow
recipients to just call the agency at their convenience. New
York City did apply for a waiver, and I believe now they have
gotten that to allow recipients to do that, but that was one
sort of road block that was at the Federal level that created
some problems.
The Chairwoman. I appreciate it.
And, Ms. Brown, one other question. As we look at this
whole concept of streamlining the administrative programs, can
we do that, is there a way to do that without literally bumping
into the statutes that Congress created?
Ms. Brown. There are some things that can be done without
bumping into the statutes, but it is very possible that there
might need to be some consideration of some changes. For
example, even some laws and regulations specify who must do the
eligibility determination. For example, with SNAP it needs to
be a state employee.
So there are things like that that might have to be
reconsidered if we were really going to look at this more
holistically and think about some bigger changes.
The Chairwoman. I appreciate it. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Ranking Member McGovern, for 5
minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much.
Ms. Brown, do you consider categorical eligibility a step
toward efficiency and making the process more effective?
Ms. Brown. Yes. What we have seen in a number of different
cases is that categorical eligibility, particularly when it is
directly certified program to program, can be a major step
toward efficiency and also have positive benefits toward
program integrity.
Mr. McGovern. I think that is an interesting point, because
the whole concept of categorical eligibility was introduced
basically to do what I think everybody here wants, to make
these programs more user friendly and more effective and
efficient. And all of a sudden now it has become unpopular
because people who are eligible are getting enrolled in the
program, and everybody is saying: Oh, my goodness, we didn't
want that to happen. But the fact of the matter is that
efficiency and effectiveness means that people who are eligible
should be able to take advantage of the benefits of these
programs.
We talk about effectiveness and efficiency and duplication
and all that kind of stuff. Does anyone here believe that the
current SNAP benefit is adequate for a family to be able to pay
for the groceries they need for an entire month?
Ms. Tussler. If I could?
Mr. McGovern. Yes.
Ms. Tussler. In the State of Wisconsin the average SNAP
benefit is not adequate. I know that the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program is supposed to be supplemental, but one of
the reasons why there may be duplication in services, a senior,
for instance, receiving $14 in SNAP and simultaneously
receiving a Commodity Supplemental food box valued at $50 who
has less than $100 in additional income to spend after rent and
utilities are paid.
So, no, SNAP is not adequate to meet people's basic needs,
and that is why you see what you think is program duplication
and what I think is a safety net.
Mr. McGovern. And I am happy to yield to Dr. Rachidi.
But what I am seeing in Massachusetts is that people are
looking for alternative programs to basically supplement their
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program because they can't
make it through the month. And I am just curious, if we
provided an adequate benefit, does that help alleviate some of
the problem?
Dr. Rachidi. If I may. I do believe that the SNAP benefit
is adequate for a large number of households that participate.
For a family of four it is $650 a month. That is the maximum
benefit.
We did a study in New York City where we looked at benefit
redemption patterns over the month, and we found that the
majority of families actually did not spend down their benefit
levels early in the month and they had benefits left over at
the end of the month.
Mr. McGovern. You are the first person who has ever told me
that.
Dr. Rachidi. Not all families, but the majority.
Mr. McGovern. Yes. You are the first person who has ever
told me that. The people that I meet with regularly and the
people who I see at food banks are not there because they want
to be at food banks, it is because they have run out of money.
I think your perspective on this is certainly different than my
experience.
Dr. Rachidi. I don't disagree with you. There are a number
of families that cannot make it through the month, and they do
have to participate and they do have to go to a food pantry.
What I am saying is when you look on the whole, for most of the
families it is adequate. We looked at administrative data and
we have been able to confirm that.
Mr. McGovern. Well, I respectfully disagree with you on
that.
Ms. Tussler, can you tell us about the LIHEAP provision
that was in the farm bill last year? Have you seen an impact on
any of the people you serve?
Ms. Tussler. Yes. Seniors and people with disabilities were
unduly affected. Most of them were living in subsidized housing
or apartments that had heat included in the rent. And although
the state said that we would lose on average $24 per senior per
month in SNAP buying benefits, what we actually saw was $90 to
$100. And so we are now seeing seniors giving up their
apartments and trying to live with family members, becoming
homeless, because they don't have enough money for food at the
end of the month.
Mr. McGovern. So seniors have lost $90 to $100 in their
benefit?
Ms. Tussler. Yes. I have an example of a lady named Molly
who is 76, and she receives $898 a month in Social Security.
Her rent is $500 a month in subsidized housing with heat
included. Her medical expenses and hygiene, other products,
leave her with $100 in excess income after the end of the
month. After she lost her standard household utility allowance
under the recent farm bill, her SNAP benefit was cut from $90
to $16.
Mr. McGovern. I hardly believe that that is an adequate
benefit for somebody to live on.
Ms. Tussler. Sixteen dollars a month.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. The chair recognizes Mrs. Hartzler, for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
First, I just wanted to commend, well, all of you, but
certainly Mr. Nader on your program. Your story was wonderful.
I am a former family consumer sciences teacher. They used to
call us home economics teacher. But what I did was a lot like
what you are doing now, is teaching nutrition education to
family, how to budget, how to stretch those dollars. So just
keep up the great work there. And I will give a shameless plug
for family consumer science education out there as well,
because it is important in our high schools.
I had a question for Ms. Brown. I guess I would like to
start with you. So in the last few years we have seen a near
complete coverage of free breakfasts and snacks in low-income
schools in addition to lunch, and we have seen growth in
weekend backpacks of food. And I can tell you, in my district,
there are so many wonderful communities and people who are
helping with that. And now we are seeing an expansion of dinner
at school.
So I guess just on an administrative viewpoint, how does
this impact the family's SNAP benefit if the child is receiving
nearly all of his or her meals at school?
Ms. Brown. Well, two points. One, a family's SNAP benefit
would not be adjusted depending on whether they were getting
other school meal benefits. Those School Meal Program benefits
are intended to complement the SNAP benefits and not cause a
reduction.
The other point is that, I mentioned in my statement that
USDA has taken some action, and one of the things that they are
planning to do is conduct a study that looks across the larger
food assistance programs and see what participation in multiple
programs, what effect that has on the nutritional intake of
different families. So we will be very interested to see the
results of that.
Mrs. Hartzler. When do you think that will happen?
Ms. Brown. I don't think they have started it yet, and I
suspect it is going to be a pretty challenging project.
Mrs. Hartzler. Sure. So that would include WIC as well. So,
like, would a mother and child under 5 receive WIC? Is there
any interaction with the household SNAP benefits?
Ms. Brown. Again, our understanding is that none of the
food assistance programs are intended to fill all of the
nutritional needs of a family, so it would not be inconceivable
for a family to receive SNAP and then, if they had very young
children and school-aged children, also receive WIC and school
meals.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Great. You mentioned in your testimony
that the SNAP is achieving seven of the ten goals of SNAP, and
I was just interested in what those are. Do you have what those
ten are and could share what the ten goals of SNAP are?
Ms. Brown. Seven of ten goals?
Mrs. Hartzler. Yes.
Ms. Brown. What I said was that seven of the 18 programs
were found to be effective and SNAP was one of them.
Mrs. Hartzler. You talked about goals of making sure that
children were fed and things like that. So I was curious what
are the goals of SNAP?
Ms. Brown. Well, the goals of SNAP are related very much to
providing families with income so that they can improve their
nutritional intake, and that is one of the things that we know
that the program is actually achieving.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. If you could get back to me later on
what the specific goals are, that would be helpful to me. I
just think that would be very helpful.
And one more question here. So as far as the funding of the
programs, there is no spending limit, per se, in each program,
right? If someone is entitled to it, there are no caps.
Ms. Brown. Congresswoman, the goals for SNAP are on page 8
of my written statement.
Right. The top programs are all entitlements with the
exception of WIC, which is not an entitlement but has been in
the past several years able to meet the demand for those
benefits.
Mrs. Hartzler. I am sorry. I was reading here. You might
have just said. My final question is, so if there is no limit
on any of them, why is SNAP the only one with the economic
times that has seen the large increase?
Ms. Brown. Well, the graphic in my statement made it look
like SNAP had a huge growth and the other programs didn't. The
other programs also experienced some growth as well, but SNAP
is intended to traditionally respond to changes in the economy.
So when the economy goes down, SNAP participation goes up. So
that wasn't a surprise. And in addition to that, the benefit
level for SNAP was increased under the Recovery Act, which made
the increase in the program spending that much bigger.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairwoman. The chair recognizes Congressman Ashford,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ashford. Thank you.
If I might ask Ms. Tussler a little bit about Wisconsin. We
have tried to in Nebraska do some things to expedite and be
more efficient in the application process for SNAP. And I know,
maybe you touched on this, but in Wisconsin you have done some
things that have been very innovative and successful on the
delivery itself. Am I correct? Could you go over some of those
for me?
Ms. Tussler. Sure. Wisconsin modernized its food stamp
application process because we weren't timely. We were
routinely getting fined from the Federal Government. And what
we did was we created an online application both for Food
Share, as well as now Medicaid, and people can go online, they
can apply.
In response to Dr. Rachidi's comments, they can have a
telephonic interview. The interview lasts about 6 to 7 minutes.
They can have a telephonic signature, which is a voice
recording of them saying that they testified to the veracity of
their claims.
They can submit verification of their application, proof
that they pay rent, proof of what their income is, proof of
everything--I always say it is proof of anything you say yes
to--via a scan or a faxed document.
And so you no longer have to go to the welfare office in
order to apply for Food Share or SNAP. We call it Food Share in
Wisconsin. And you can, as a result, have a more dignified
access to the program. It can make better sense for you because
it is online 24 hours. And for a lot of seniors, it has been
welcome, because they were often frightened to go to the
locations that the welfare office was in Milwaukee.
Mr. Ashford. And so do you have some data then on how that
has worked across the system? With elderly recipients it has
been a good thing. Has it also been the same for younger
recipients? Or how has it worked with all elements?
Ms. Tussler. Well, it improved program enrollment, program
integrity, program operations in general. We reached the point
in Wisconsin where we were actually getting bonus funding on a
regular basis, and so we turned it around, in effect.
And I know a lot of groups struggle with modernization. I
think it still has places that it can go, including
verification, because oftentimes we are chasing down some piece
of paper that proves how much money we made or that we have a
child in the house when, indeed, the state already knows that
about you.
So I think that there can be connections between state
databases and food stamp applications that would further
improve program integrity and help customers verify, as well as
reduce the costs of operating a food stamp program.
Mr. Ashford. That is interesting. There was testimony
earlier, and we have had testimony previously, about the need
for more collaboration and data sharing. Just logically it
would seem to me that that kind of process would lead to more
data sharing once you get people used to the process. Is that--
--
Ms. Tussler. Yes, and it changes how people apply and who
they apply with. You are still applying with a government-level
employee, but they are processing more data, as opposed to
being a social worker. And so there is a lot less time spent
face to face working with people and trying to consider their
circumstances. Maybe there is a loss of other opportunities to
talk to people about why they are in poverty or how they could
get jobs. But the reality is that it expedites the process. It
reduces the taxpayer burden on the administration of the
program.
Mr. Ashford. And then going back to evaluate how it has
worked or is working, that process it seems to me would also be
helpful in that regard, correct? If we are doing research on
the effectiveness of the program and how it could be changed or
altered, this process would be a way to do that or a way to get
into that data?
Ms. Tussler. Yes, I absolutely agree.
Mr. Ashford. Thank you.
I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Congressman Benishek, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Nader, good to see you again. Thank you for coming here
to D.C. to talk about your personal experiences.
One of the questions that I have, and maybe you can tell me
a little about it, I want to ask some of the other folks too,
it seems to me that there maybe should be a more holistic
approach to how we help people. I am not sure, is it possible
that you can have one contact and get all the benefits that you
are eligible with one encounter?
And the other thing I want to commend you for, and I think
that many of our local nonprofits really assist people a lot in
that area in job training and food assistance. And can you tell
me about your experience and what you do a little bit more, and
if you can relate to my thought here?
Mr. Nader. Sure. I mean, with the Cooking Matters program
in general, it is a 6 week long program where we are taking the
folks or the kids through, it is about 2 hours, 6 weeks, so
once a week. And it is general nutrition and basic cooking
skills, and then it is capped off by a store tour. For us in
Detroit, we have had a lot of need. The economy has been rough
in particular there, as it has everywhere.
But the store tour for me too is a really important piece
of that. The whole educational piece in general is essential to
the success of any of these type of programs. Unfortunately, it
is not really my expertise to speak to why people are in that
position, however, I am on the front lines of that in Detroit.
I am experiencing many folks that don't have those basic
skills.
Mr. Benishek. Can you tell me a little bit about this? Is
it a food wasteland or an inability to find food in your
neighborhood?
Mr. Nader. A food desert.
Mr. Benishek. A food desert, yes. Tell me about that a
little bit.
Mr. Nader. In my community there are many areas in and
around that we have land areas that there aren't stores
available, or if they are, they are like bodegas or like what
we call in Michigan party stores. And they have very limited
food available that is in those, or folks don't have access to
a proper grocery store or food access in general. That pretty
much speaks to that.
Mr. Benishek. All right. Thanks.
Ms. Tussler, you heard my questioning here. I am trying to
think there has to be a better way of doing this. And you said
that as well.
Ms. Tussler. Yes.
Mr. Benishek. Is there a way for someone to apply for all
these benefits at one time? That doesn't sound like it exists.
That is why I mentioned the nonprofits because sometimes these
local nonprofits, they can reach out to a lot of different
local sources and help people negotiate the morass of
bureaucracy.
Ms. Tussler. Sure. And they often do. The Ohio Benefits
Bank model is a model where nonprofits will sit down and talk
to you about all the things you could be eligible for, and they
will give you a printout. But, sadly, you still have to run to
all those places and try to apply for those benefits. So they
are not coordinated at the state level.
Mr. Benishek. Yes. That is where I think that we could be
helpful maybe here in our job.
Ms. Tussler. You could.
Mr. Benishek. And I think that one of the, hopefully, the
results of these hearings, is that we can streamline the
process and make it easier for people to find out what they are
eligible for and make it easy.
What about Mr. Nader's comment about the, what is it, the
food wasteland?
Ms. Tussler. Food desert.
Mr. Benishek. Food desert. Do you have experience with
that? Because I worry about people being able to access food
and not having to go to the party store and ending up with a TV
dinner or something.
Ms. Tussler. Right. There are food deserts throughout the
country. In Milwaukee we have them as well. And people have to
travel large distances in order to be able to access healthy or
fresh foods at sort of the big box grocery store instead of the
smaller store. And it is about land availability and landmass
and sort of a perception with large retail grocers that those
people don't have any money to spend on anything.
Mr. Benishek. It seems to me that most people that are in
this situation, or a lot of them, don't have access to a
vehicle where they can just drive to a grocery store.
Ms. Tussler. And oftentimes public transportation doesn't
go where they live.
Mr. Benishek. All right. Well, that is an issue that we
should kind of investigate as well, don't you think?
Ms. Tussler. Yes. But very quickly, I used to run a
homeless shelter in 1988 in Milwaukee, and we used to send
people to the welfare office, and they could apply for TANF--
AFDC back then--food stamps, and Medicaid. And they would walk
out knowing what their benefits would be. They would walk out
with paper emergency coupons. They would walk out with health
insurance for their children. We took that apart.
Mr. Benishek. All right. Thank you. I am out of time.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Congresswoman DelBene.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I would like to thank all of you for being here with us
today. I really appreciate you taking the time.
Ms. Tussler, you talked a little about that you also have a
farm, and I was interested in what you grow and how you use
that to supplement the food that you distribute to food
pantries or to people who are coming seeking help.
Ms. Tussler. Sure. Milwaukee is primarily an urban
community, but there was a work farm that was operated by our
house of corrections, and we took that farm over when it was
closed. It is a 208 acre farm. It is a vegetable farm, and so
it grows 27 different varieties of fruits and vegetables. Those
are planted by volunteers and along with some of our staff
farmers and harvested later in the fall and delivered to our
emergency food pantry network absolutely free of charge. And we
do that because TEFAP doesn't provide us with any fresh or
wholesome foods.
Ms. DelBene. And do you know others who are doing things
like that to try to supplement and provide fresh fruits and
vegetables?
Ms. Tussler. It is challenging because the food bank
network nationwide relies on unsalable or less than wholesome
foods that are donated by large corporations or large store
chains. And instead of doing that, what we do is grow our own
food, which we think is a more wholesome and sort of more
agricultural and Wisconsin-based approach to meeting the need.
Ms. DelBene. And so are you able to get that out quickly
and get it distributed quickly?
Ms. Tussler. Sometimes on the same day.
Ms. DelBene. Are there challenges that you face in trying
to do this and make sure you have the availability of fresh
vegetables?
Ms. Tussler. Well, we have the fresh fruit and vegetables
from April through November, and then in the winter months we
don't have a lot going on and we are back to the canned and
stable products that TEFAP offers.
Ms. DelBene. Also, you alluded to this a little bit
earlier. Ms. Brown had identified in her testimony that two
programs that overlap in who may participate are SNAP and the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program. And all low-income seniors
are eligible for SNAP, while CSFP is only available to a
limited number of seniors because of the cap on funding.
And I know you work with both programs, and so I wondered
if you can comment if you think that CSFP is duplicative or
redundant with SNAP and why it is important that we make sure
that seniors have access to both programs.
Ms. Tussler. Well, clearly a senior in Milwaukee could
receive both CSFP and SNAP. Our experience, however, is that
the SNAP benefit is at $14 and rarely goes above $90 based on
the person's medical experiences and asset tests. But the CSFP
program is going to provide them with a $50 box of canned and
stable products.
And so SNAP comes in and allows them to purchase in a very
modest way anything that they might want that would be fresh,
any meat or dairy, any kind of cheeses, any vegetables or
fruit, frankly, because there are just going to be two cans of
fruit and four cans of vegetables in the CSFP box.
Ms. DelBene. Or things that maybe personally were
unappealing, as you were referring to earlier too.
Ms. Tussler. Yes. Canned beef stew. They get one can of
canned beef stew or one can of beef in juices. Powdered milk is
not a favorite of most people. And sometimes they are given
foods that they can't eat, like grapefruit juice.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nader, what do you think is the most effective method
of reaching SNAP households through nutrition education that
you found in your experience so far?
Mr. Nader. Honestly, the Cooking Matters program I can
attest is working well. It is a very structured, formatted
program, and we take them through each step of the way, and at
the end of that 6 weeks I feel like they have come a long way
from where they started to be able to make the wise choices and
be able to empower themselves to shop accordingly.
Ms. DelBene. And if we kind of turned that around, what do
you think are the greatest challenges, or what things would you
like to be able to do differently that you think would help
make it more effective?
Mr. Nader. I would say if we could access more folks. It is
all volunteer based. I am out there on the front lines. Each
class is usually someone from the nutrition field, say a
volunteer registered dietician, and then a chef. So we are
constantly struggling to get proper volunteers. And then once
we have that in place, I am out there making sure we get the
folks out there to teach the classes, but then getting people
aware. So I guess awareness would be the answer.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you very much. I yield back. Thank you,
Madam Chairman.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Congressman Gibbs, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you all of the witnesses coming in, and especially
Mr. Nader, to hear your story and your continued work to help
people. That is admirable, and it actually helps the program
because you get more credibility into the whole program and the
system.
And I know the Ranking Member in his opening comments
talked about protecting SNAP funding, and the best way to
protect it is to make sure that it isn't being abused. Because,
I forget which network did it, but sometime last year there was
an expose about a surfer out in California living on food
stamps and eating lobster and everything else.
Obviously things happen. But when my constituents see that,
then they get upset, and that doesn't help people that need the
help. So we want to make sure that people that actually do need
the help, make sure they get that help.
Dr. Rachidi, I guess Ms. Brown had a little bit in her
testimony, but your main points, you talk about the duplication
and inefficiency that exists in these programs as they are
currently administered. ``The decentralized nature of the
current system means that knowledge about how to help families
with food needs is lost, and families are ultimately hurt
because the system is not set up to treat them holistically and
likely requires more government dollars to administer than is
necessary.''
And you go in your next paragraph in your written
testimony, you talk about how in the last 10 years nutrition
assistant has grown 78 percent, while the Earned Income Tax
Credit increased 46 percent and the SSI increased 23 percent.
And then you say that you don't expect a return down to prior
levels.
We, obviously, from 2008, 2009, went through the Great
Recession, I guess they call it, and a lot of people lost their
jobs. And I want you to respond, what is happening, why did we
see such a rise, almost twofold, versus the other assistance
programs, and now we see unemployment coming down.
In my area I have employers begging for workers and can't
find them. Might be kind of the energy side has kind of been
driving some of that. But can you maybe elaborate a little bit
on what is happening? We should be seeing food stamp costs
coming down if the economy is actually improving.
Go ahead.
Dr. Rachidi. Right. I expect it will come down, but as I
mentioned in my testimony, probably not to prior levels. And
there are a couple major reasons for that.
One is just changes that happened to the program around
2008 with the farm bill and other changes. One is the
elimination of the asset test in most states, so there is an
asset test where you can only have, I believe it is $2,000 in
assets. That has been eliminated in most states. In New York we
attribute much of the increase that we saw after 2008 to the
economy and to the elimination of that asset test.
The other key component is the categorical eligibility for
TANF, which is up to 200 percent of poverty. States have used
that to then enroll families into SNAP because they are
categorically eligible for SNAP if they are receiving TANF.
So I would say those are probably the two main things.
The third is the ABAWD elimination of the work requirement
during the downturn in the economy, but as the economy improves
that should be reinstated in most places.
Mr. Gibbs. Let me ask you a question on that, because Ohio
had that program, and the Governor in certain areas where the
unemployment dropped rescinded that program, but kept in it
certain pockets. Is that correct, how that functions?
Dr. Rachidi. Yes, yes.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. Just another question for you, because you
mentioned that a family of four gets $650 a month for SNAP.
Dr. Rachidi. If they have no other income, yes.
Mr. Gibbs. If they have no other income.
They already had the discussion a little bit, during the
school year if their dependents are going to school and get
breakfast and lunch, that is additional, there is no factoring
in, like when summer hits, there is no change in that.
There should be some more coordination between not just
that, but just all the other benefits that are available to put
this together in a package. And would that help with the
duplication and efficiencies? That is a no-brainer. But would
you have suggestions how that could happen, say, at a county
level or a local level to help get the coordination of benefits
so it works better?
Dr. Rachidi. Sure. I think data sharing, I mentioned that
before, but that is key, and just sharing data across programs.
In New York it is difficult because WIC is operated out of the
Department of Health and SNAP is operated out of the Department
of Social Services, so there is not a whole lot of opportunity
for coordination there.
If there was an opportunity to share more data across
programs and also potentially share workers so that workers
were familiar with both programs and that when they saw a
family they could talk about both programs, that doesn't happen
currently in New York City and I don't think we are unique in
the country. I don't think that probably happens in a lot of
places.
So that is just one example, that if that could be
achieved, that would save on administrative costs definitely
because you are reducing the amount of workers and the amount
of time they have to spend with families, but it is also just
helping the families because they can be treated more
holistically.
The Chairwoman. If the gentleman would pause. To be fair,
the clock was not running for about a minute and so I am going
to have to, now that you are on the clock----
Mr. Gibbs. Oh, that is fine. I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Congressman Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Walorski and
Ranking Member McGovern.
And thank you to the witnesses for joining us.
As we know, food insecurity is a critical issue throughout
this nation, which is why SNAP plays a crucial role in
connecting families with accessibility to healthy and
nutritious foods.
Before I ask a question, and I may only get to one, I
wanted to first take a few moments and talk about recently I
went through the SNAP challenge with my wife. Alisha and I
completed it a few weeks ago, following in the spirit of Ms.
DelBene and Ranking Member McGovern. My wife Alisha and I in
the district lived on $4.73 a day, which is the average amount
for an adult CalFresh SNAP recipient. We chose to do that to
learn more about the 30,000 families in my district who
experience food insecurity every day and to raise awareness for
hunger and nutrition.
We started by going to the store on Sunday and used the $66
amount in food to get us through the entire week. We understand
that SNAP is meant to be supplemental, as Ms. Tussler
mentioned, but for many families SNAP makes up the majority of
their food budget, so we felt it important to try to live on
just the SNAP budget. As we shopped, we were conscious of our
budget and the balance between what was healthy and what was
affordable, and for us that put a premium on planning, 21 meals
at one time.
I did this challenge for 1 week but for tens of thousands
of families in my district and thousands of families throughout
this country they struggle to make that budget and to plan
their meals and they struggle with food insecurity every day.
Oftentimes, they are working multiple jobs and they are
pressured to choose between what is nutritious and affordable.
And even then they still go to bed hungry or wake up hungry
without an end in sight.
I shared my experience with my constituents on Facebook and
social media, and the local newspaper ran columns each day
about my experiences. A few of the biggest concerns I found
throughout this challenge focused in two areas. One was the
concentration of families who may qualify for SNAP that are
unaware that it is available to them, as some of the panelists
have mentioned. And the second was communication between
government and recipients so that families understand their
food options and have an opportunity to better plan those
healthy meals.
In the city of San Bernardino that I represent 37 percent
of the population relies on SNAP to help put food on their
table. I am sure that number is pretty close to what Mr. Nader
sees in Detroit and other communities around this country.
These families deserve access to healthy food planning for
their households. For example, seeds can be purchased with SNAP
funding, something I am sure many recipients are not aware of.
So here is my question, and I would like to hear from Mr.
Nader and Ms. Tussler. Given the large enrollment gap we see in
districts like mine, what types of resources can Congress and
anti-hunger organizations provide to help alleviate food
insecurity in communities with people living below the poverty
line, but who have not applied for SNAP assistance? How can we
help those families overcome that stigma or that barrier to
register for SNAP?
Ms. Tussler. States are eligible to apply for SNAP outreach
funding. And typically those resources go to outreach to
vulnerable populations, seniors who don't know that they are
eligible for the program, lots of people who think that maybe
it is a program for somebody else for whatever reason, limited
English proficient, elderly, blind, and disabled folk. And most
of those programs are operated by nonprofits who are in touch
with specific populations and can provide culturally competent
services in languages other than English.
Mr. Aguilar. Does every state apply for that outreach
funding?
Ms. Tussler. Not every state does.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Mr. Nader.
Mr. Nader. Thank you.
I don't rely deal with that end of the----
Mr. Aguilar. Sure. Just the general stigma associated with
it. I mean, you see families every day.
Mr. Nader. Sure. I have experienced that personally as
well. I alluded earlier to the part of the Cooking Matters
program where we take them to the store to shop, and Ms.
Tussler also alluded to that earlier, being able to go and do
that on your own, with dignity, shop, choose wisely what you
would pick, and use those resources accordingly is a very
important process.
Mr. Aguilar. What more can we do to help with that process?
I mean, is it continued community outreach that Ms. Tussler
mentioned? Where does the government role meet that nonprofit
role and that hat that you wear, no pun intended, Chef, but
that hat that you wear that helps connect families and helps
that education side?
Mr. Nader. I would say that is exactly what is needed. In
Detroit the needs are great, and I would say that the continued
education portion of this is just essential.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Congressman Yoho.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I appreciate all four of you being here with your
testimony. And just kind of for the record, just one of you
pick it out, maybe you, Ms. Brown, what is your definition of
food insecurity? We are tasked on this Committee to be the ones
reforming this program. Eighty percent of the money in the farm
bill goes to nutritional programs. So for us to reform that so
that we are all on the same page as we move forward, so that we
are all in agreement what we are trying to accomplish, if you
would give a definition. And I would like for the other ones,
if you agree or not.
Ms. Brown. Well, rather than my own personal definition, I
had a feeling this was going to come up, so I brought the
definition----
Mr. Yoho. Thank you.
Ms. Brown.--that is used when they do the survey every
year, the kinds of questions that they ask.
Food insecurity is household members that were at times
uncertain of having or unable to acquire enough food for all
household members because they had insufficient money or other
resources. And then there are definitions below that for low
and very low.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. For the record, that is going to be entered
in there.
[The information referred to is located on p. 281.]
Mr. Yoho. Are we all pretty much in agreement with that?
Does anybody differ from that on the panel?
Ms. Tussler. I guess I would just suggest that we believe
that everybody has the right to adequate food obtained with
dignity and we would add that the foods should be healthy.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. I just want clarification, because as we
move forward, we are going to make policy changes, or add to or
take away, and we want to make sure that we are in agreement
with that.
And then, Dr. Rachidi, you brought up, what is your
definition of treating these families holistically? What does
that mean? And, again, this is for clarification.
Dr. Rachidi. When I talk about treating a family
holistically, I mean being able to communicate to them all of
the resources that are available to them through the food
assistance programs. So having a worker that has knowledge, if
they can't enroll them directly into all the benefit programs,
they should at least have the knowledge of those programs so
that the families can be aware of those programs.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. And I am working somewhere with this.
Mr. Nader, you brought up about your background. I can
appreciate that, as this panel has heard, I grew up in a
wealthy family or high upper middle class until we went broke,
and then my parents got divorced, our house got repossessed
when I was 15, and I was out on my own at 18. And my wife and I
got married at 19, and we were food stamps for a short period
of time.
You brought up the thing about--Ms. Tussler, is that right,
my eyes are failing me--about the dignity. And I remember
having the coupons, the food stamps. And there was a stigma,
but I was so thankful they were there, but it encouraged me to
work harder to get off of them as quick as I could. So I don't
think that is a bad thing, per se.
Like you, Mr. Nader, we got off of them it, but it was
there for us and it did raise us up. We got in, we moved up, we
moved out. And I hope that is the goal of all of this, because
I hear stories like Mr. Thompson brought up of the surfer that
was on one of the news channels, but, unfortunately, we see
that in our districts and I hear stories about that every day.
And so to reform these programs so that they do work well, we
need that information.
And then I want to ask you, because as you are treating
holistically, I hope we also talk about responsibility. People
are out there, they are struggling, they are making a living,
they are doing the best they can. Absolutely. But also when I
look at programs that we are feeding breakfasts at every
school, and then it was breakfast and lunch, and now it is
dinner, now it is take home, where does it stop? As we are
talking to people, are we counseling them on the responsibility
of a family, of feeding them?
And then you were talking, Mr. Nader, about teaching people
how to pick out foods properly, teaching people how to cook
properly. Is that the role of the Federal Government? Where did
we break down in society where it is not passed down from
generation to generation?
Mr. Nader. Well, I think that preserving the SNAP aspect of
that helps people get the skills so when they do, as you had
done, and get off the program, you are able then to sustain
that. It is the sustainability aspect of that educational
piece.
Mr. Yoho. I have one more question, and if you guys, if you
don't have time to answer this, if you could put it in a
written answer. We have heard over and over again that there
are a lot of programs doing the same thing. Is there a way to
centralize this so that we don't have two or three different
agencies and 18 different programs sending all this out for the
duplication?
And I understand the argument of the duplication, how it
does cover some people that might have been missed. But if we
can centralize, it will cut the cost and make it more
effective. If you could respond to that, it would be greatly
appreciated.
Thank you.
[The information referred to is located on p. 281.]
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Congresswoman Adams.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, ladies and gentleman, for your testimony.
I appreciate the Government Accountability Office's
mentioning that participation in SNAP and WIC and school meal
programs are associated with positive health and nutrition
outcomes. We need to do that.
I recently hosted a roundtable in Greensboro where I live,
in North Carolina, to discuss food hardship in my district. I
heard firsthand testimony of Melanie Noble, a SNAP recipient,
who struggled for 3 months to re-certify her family's benefits
after she moved to Greensboro from Pennsylvania. While living
in a homeless shelter with her two children she had to depend
on donations from other SNAP recipients in order to feed her
family.
According to the Food Research & Action Center, the
Greensboro-High Point area, where I live, currently ranks first
in the nation for households struggling to pay for food through
the end of the month. From the Triad to Charlotte, communities
in the 12th District of North Carolina are above the national
average when it comes to struggling to put food on the table.
SNAP benefits are simply not enough. Other Federal food
programs such as school meals and food commodity programs help
families make it to the end of the month. Each agency that
administers a food program has the capacity to maximize access
to these programs for their specific constituents.
So any review of food programs must thoroughly examine the
consequences of consolidating programs. We can't allow families
who are currently eligible and need food assistance to be
denied support in order to reduce cost.
Dr. Rachidi, the story that I just shared about Ms. Noble
is an example of churn, households going off, coming back on
SNAP within 4 months due to a life change in circumstances.
Churn is not only inefficient, but expensive. So do you have
any recommendations about how to lessen churn?
Dr. Rachidi. In practice, because we often would hear about
churning, and I am talking mostly about SNAP, when people have
volatile income where they have changes in income frequently,
in the program they really don't report that until every 6
month re-certification period. So that provides them with a
little bit of a grace period in terms of their benefits. And so
this idea that people go on and off, it really is more related
to the certification periods, which are 6 months to a year. So
people don't go on and off SNAP every month.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Ms. Tussler, it has been mentioned that
the School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program are
managed separately, which could lead to an increase in
administrative costs. Would combining the administration of the
lunch and breakfast programs make it more difficult for schools
to participate in the School Lunch Program?
Ms. Tussler. Combining the administration would definitely
streamline things under the Community Eligibility Provision.
What we found is that schools can provide meals to 100 percent
of the student body, breakfast after the bell, lunch in a more
organized fashion as a result of not having to collect
paperwork and PINs from students who are waiting to eat.
And so in school districts that have 60 percent or higher
levels of poverty, which is many, many school districts, in
Milwaukee the entire school district, the Community Eligibility
Provision allows the school district to feed all children that
are in our care when they are in our care. So I think that
Community Eligibility Provision is something that the Committee
should consider and take back to their communities because we
know that it works.
Ms. Adams. Thank you.
Mr. Nader, quickly, what do you believe is the biggest
barrier to improving the nutrition of SNAP recipients? Is it
the cost of fresh produce, for example?
Mr. Nader. Well, that is definitely one. I think we do
teach, while fresh produce is ideal, unfortunately, not
everybody has access to that. So therefore in that program we
make sure that we talk about frozen and canned produce as well,
because we have to be honest and realistic with it. The cost is
definitely one of the issues for sure.
Ms. Adams. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Congressman Moolenaar, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to thank all of you for speaking with us today.
And, Mr. Nader, I also want to thank you for sharing your
story with us. And as a Michigan person, I appreciate what you
are doing for the Lions and also for the people of Detroit. I
appreciate your efforts.
I wanted to talk with all of you, maybe we could start with
Mr. Nader, about the role of the private sector and the faith-
based community. One of the things that struck me about what
you said about the Cooking Matters program is that you have
really been able to form partnerships. And you mentioned Wal-
Mart and some others.
What have you found helpful, if you would start us off,
engaging the private sector and kind of mobilizing resources
that way?
And if each of you could kind of respond to that as well.
[The information referred to is located on p. 282.]
Mr. Nader. Sure. The model we use at Cooking Matters in
particular is there is some SNAP-Ed funding that goes with
that, and then, just as you stated, some of our community
partners, as well as corporate partners to help sustain a
program like that. Because it is very formatted and structured
and there are materials that come with it. There are costs to
it aside from the food costs as well.
I could get back to you as far as to the actual breakdown
of how that works with the SNAP, what actually comes out of the
SNAP-Ed.
But it is a little bit out of my expertise. I am on the
front line teaching these classes, but I know that that model
has been working good for our program.
Mr. Moolenaar. You mentioned yourself as a chef and a
nutritionist that works, and one of the needs you have is for
more volunteers to maybe help with this. What have you found is
probably the best motivation for people to be engaged in the
program?
Mr. Nader. It is kind of a vocational call. When I am
talking to fellow chefs as members of the food community, I
feel that we are obligated in a sense to participate on that
level. And so that is kind of how I approach it with the chefs.
As far as the nutritional side, that is a little more
technical, but I feel like at least some of the registered
dieticians that we have used and people that are in the medical
field on that end, they kind of feel the same way as well.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
Ms. Tussler. Hunger Task Force is our nonprofit and last
year we raised $6,174,000 in private sector resources. The farm
is supported by the Harley Davidson Foundation. Many of our
food drives are supported by Johnson Controls, MillerCoors,
Northwestern Mutual. Kohl's Department Stores pays for all the
summer suppers to the tune of $500,000. Individuals volunteer,
as many as 7,000 annually.
And Hunger Task Force is able to collect more than 59
percent of the food that we distribute from the local
community, not relying on large corporate resources, but
instead food drives. And so I think that we have organized sort
of the local community in a really great way, a great tribute
to the citizens of Milwaukee for their efforts.
But I don't think that the efforts of those people could
any way, shape, or form replace the effect of the SNAP program
on a community, because the work that we do, and the Federal
budget would reflect, about four percent of it is TEFAP and 70
percent of it is SNAP. And so if we dismantle SNAP and we push
people towards charity, we are going to break charity. And
charity is 70 year old people from churches.
So there is only so much they can do, there is only so much
that the private sector can handle, and there is only so much
demand that each community can meet.
I would like to remind everybody that I grew up in 1977
when there weren't food banks across the nation, when there
weren't soup kitchens and homeless shelters, before we had sort
of large and wide-scale poverty in our nation. And we should
stop allowing it, and we should start questioning why we think
it is okay to have food banks. I operate one. I would welcome
people to put me out of business.
Mr. Moolenaar. Dr. Rachidi, did you have a comment about
this at all?
Dr. Rachidi. I definitely think there is a role for private
sector and charities. I think it is not realistic to think that
a Federal program can provide for every situation of every
family and every food need. So I do think that there is a role
for the private sector.
Ms. Brown. Well, I was thinking about Milwaukee and how one
of the things that we notice when we go from place to place
across the country looking at programs is not every local
community has the same amount of mobilization and support. And
so our concern would be trying to make sure there was equity
across different areas.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Congresswoman Lujan Grisham.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I too want to thank this panel. The resounding theme,
and I think also the purpose of this Subcommittee is that we
would all rather not be talking about the need for additional
programs. I, like everyone else, would like to stamp out hunger
in this country and I am dismayed every minute of every day
that we aren't there.
And, in fact, I represent a district and a state with the
hungriest children in the country and one of the highest adult
hunger situations in the country. It is demoralizing, it is
inappropriate, and it is something that we can work together to
absolutely eradicate. And so each of your roles to get there is
commendable and incredibly important.
And I recognize the value too of figuring out the best ways
to administer these programs and the best ways to leverage
them. I was the cabinet secretary for the aging department in
New Mexico for 14 years, so three different governors, two
parties. And I will tell you that government eligibility
standards nearly drove me to drink. So they are difficult.
And one of the things I want to think about is, while we
can debate categorical eligibility and the benefits of that and
some of the weaknesses potentially in that, the fact that we
don't do data sharing, the fact that it is very difficult to
administer programs. I have a senior center with a childcare
center, because grandparents are raising grandchildren. That is
another statistic that my state is one of the highest in the
country.
But we can't do meals for kids at that center and we can't
use senior center funding for meals for seniors because the
Federal Government doesn't allow you to leverage, because we
call that supplanting, one program for another. And if you
touch those programs, by and large, we are a little bit better
today, I am old, but we are a little bit better today, but not
much. And, in fact, you are penalized, really it is
counterproductive to leverage programs, to administer together,
to share data.
Similarly, we are now doing community school-based health
centers that provide health care not just to the students, but
the entire families, yet we can't share food in a school
setting, and a grandparent or a parent who is hungry is no good
at helping the other social issues that that child has. I mean,
having these huge gaps doesn't make any sense.
So I have a question, I promise, in here somewhere.
The second thing is really I appreciate that even though I
was not here for every question, I really appreciate that there
was some discussion about what is appropriate. We don't do
really any therapeutic diets in any of these programs because
we can't afford to do that.
Your point, Ms. Tussler, about grapefruit juice is well
taken. Now let's talk about a recent study about vitamin D
deficiencies and dementia which costs this country hundreds of
billions of dollars but is preventable. That is before we talk
about vitamin B deficiencies, where if you don't deal with that
deficiency and you don't meet the right nutritional standards
and you don't have the right nutrition, then you have permanent
dementia. We are right back to hundreds of billions of dollars
dealing with diabetes, health care, dementia, and long-term
care services.
So if we were to leverage better and we eradicate hunger
and we do all the things that we know would make a difference,
could we at the Federal level, to promote the sharing of the
data of these programs and leveraging information so we do
single delivery. We must be really clear that the centralized
kitchens for seniors can be used in these varying ways and that
school kitchens and your work, Mr. Nader, is there a way to
promote the sharing among those Federal programs, which are
today mandated not to work together? Do you think that could
have an impact in promoting best practices in the states?
Anyone?
Dr. Rachidi. Well, I definitely do. I think the fact that
it is a fragmented system starting at the Federal level is much
of the reason why that trickles down to the state and local
level.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Okay.
Ms. Brown. And I would just like to add the idea, our
recommendation that the USDA form a panel that brings in people
from all different levels, Federal, state, and local, and
people that have had experiences like you and others on the
panel have had, that can share together and look at where the
gaps are and where there are opportunities for more
efficiencies. It starts at the Federal level. And I can't
resist saying it, also the fact that this crosses over multiple
Congressional committees creates a challenge as well that needs
to be dealt with or overcome.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Absolutely.
Well, I really appreciate that perspective because I agree,
and I think that we could promote that as a best practice and
maybe mandate it in some form. I think we would see some pretty
incredible results. So I appreciate your work.
And with that, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Congressman Abraham, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you all for being here.
I have lived and practiced medicine in the Louisiana Delta
all my life, so my district is certainly one of the most
poorest in the nation. They have major newspapers come down and
do full-page reports on us as to how poor we are. So it is
critical. I mean, I have seen hunger, and I don't think there
would be anybody in this room that would want a child or an
adult in America to go to bed hungry.
I am looking, Ms. Brown, I will direct I guess my comment
and my question to you, I am looking at page 2 of the GAO
highlights that you provided us, and thank you for that. And I
counted down and there were 18 programs, and you can correct me
if I am wrong, it looked like about \1/3\ of them are targeted
for children.
And I guess my question or my comment is, with the
shrinking dollar, the shrinking economy that we are having to
deal with, and up on the boldface it says the Federal
Government spends about $100 billion on these 18 programs in
the Fiscal Year 2014, so we are going to have to get more
efficient with our dollar it looks like.
Are these programs, especially the six or the \1/3\ that
are targeted for children, are they coordinated where you are
getting your most for your product? Are most of the children
getting positive results? Or are these programs just kind of,
well, this one may work, this one doesn't, let's see, let's
throw them in the pot and see what happens?
Ms. Brown. Well, first of all, it is not surprising that so
many of these programs are targeted to children, because over
time as there is a need defined, then new programs have been
started. But we certainly see an opportunity for better
coordination and better looking systematically across those
programs to see whether there are efficiencies that could be
achieved.
Mr. Abraham. Dr. Rachidi, you said that WIC and SNAP are
administered by two different Federal agencies. Is it even
logical to assume that as Congress we can attain that goal? Is
there hope out there that we can coordinate these programs and
make them more efficient?
Dr. Rachidi. I think it would be difficult to completely
combine them and coordinate them. But there are opportunities
to take a look at certain aspects of the program that could be
coordinated. I don't know all the details of that, but there
definitely are things around. Just even the retailer
certification that I described earlier, it is completely
separate in the two programs.
There are certain areas, but, yes, I think it is probably
unrealistic to think that they are going to be completely
combined and operate out of one Federal agency.
Mr. Abraham. But there certainly is room for improvement
and for some coordination that we could legislate, hopefully,
and make them more efficient programs for our people.
Dr. Rachidi. Yes, definitely.
Mr. Abraham. Ms. Brown, you have a comment?
Ms. Brown. I was just going to say that we just released a
report today looking at services that are needed to help older
adults stay in their community. And when we are talking about
children, it is also important to think about the fact that we
have a number of programs that are serving older adults that do
everything from delivering meals to homes, to congregate meals,
to parts of the SNAP program. And this is an area where we
expect the demand to increase dramatically, and it will be all
the more important to make sure we are using these resources
efficiently.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back, Madam Chairman.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Congressman Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you Madam Chairman. Can I possibly get the
minute 14 seconds he yielded back too?
The Chairwoman. That would be negative. So continue.
Mr. Davis. That is all right, that is all right
Mr. Nader, great to see you again. It was great to speak
with you. I thought you promised me yesterday when we met in my
office that you were going to bring me examples of what you
cooked for Ndamukong Suh when he was playing for the Detroit
Lions. I see nothing.
Mr. Nader. That is correct.
Mr. Davis. Well, much appreciated. We will welcome you back
another time to demonstrate some of the things that you do
within your Cooking Matters program too.
So thank you for what you do. I am sorry I missed your
opening testimony. I appreciate all of you being here, and this
is a great opportunity for us here in Congress to get an idea
of how certain program are implemented and the concerns and the
problems that you may have with those programs being
implemented.
I will get to my first question for Mr. Nader. And I hope I
am not redundant, so forgive me if you have already answered
this. But you benefited from both SNAP and school meals as a
kid. And can you expand a little bit on how those actually
worked with you and your family?
Mr. Nader. Well, I mean, the Lunch Program speaks for
itself. That was most often the program that we used. And then
with the SNAP benefits, again, there were small times and
needs. And the way the auto industry economy worked back when I
was a kid there would be plant shutdowns or downturns when
things wouldn't, and that is when things would get tough and we
would have to go on a program?
But it was never really a permanent situation, luckily. And
that is a big misconception, that there are a lot of folks that
are on it and then they stay on it. The fact is these are
working families and then they utilize the supplemental aspect
of this when needed.
Mr. Davis. In your case, yes, that was the case. And are
you seeing that same trend with many of the participants in
your Cooking Matters class too where they are on and off the
programs?
Mr. Nader. Yes. Again, I believe in our particular case in
the Detroit community that is the same thing. Many of the
families and the kids of the families I am working with are
working families and they are just simply not making enough
money to carry through all the way, and then that is where that
supplemental aspect comes in.
Mr. Davis. Okay. Well, thank you again. And, again, I wish
you success this year except against my Oakland Raiders. That
is all I can say.
Mr. Nader. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Dr. Rachidi, I used to work for another Member
of Congress and during and after disasters on an annual basis
DHS through FEMA would offer assistance for communities. And it
seemed to me that it could possibly be redundant. And I know
your experience in New York City. Can you tell me if are there
any issues that you may have faced with redundancy between USDA
programs, DHS programs, and anything you would offer us as a
Committee to try and fix that?
Dr. Rachidi. Well, the emergency food programs are a little
bit redundant. It seems like from my perspective the CBOs that
have to kind of cobble together the different funding sources
to support their emergency food programs, it does seem--and
redundant may not be the right--just not coordinated. And why
does it have to be from two different funding sources when
really it could be from one?
And then in terms of really the emergency aspect of it, in
New York City when we had Hurricane Sandy, I know that there
was coordination across those two different programs, and so it
happened, but really ideally, again, why should you have to
coordinate across two different programs that are really
providing the same thing? So it has to happen, you have to
coordinate during emergencies, but really it shouldn't be like
that.
Mr. Davis. So what you are recommending is that USDA get
control of all of these programs so this Committee has
jurisdiction, right?
Dr. Rachidi. You said that.
Mr. Davis. Oh, you just did. Thank you for your
recommendation.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, but
thank you all again.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Ranking Member McGovern for 1 minute
for a wrap.
Mr. McGovern. That is it, 1 minute?
The Chairwoman. Yes, a minute. We doubled from last week.
Mr. McGovern. Oh, yes. Well, thank you.
Let me just say that I am all for better coordination, and
we ought to be able to do that. And there are challenges
because, as was mentioned, a lot of these anti-hunger and
nutrition programs fall under multiple committees in Congress,
under multiple agencies.
But I am also for a plan to end hunger. We don't really
have a plan in this country to end hunger. With this
Administration, and the previous Administration, I have been
urging the White House to put together a White House conference
on food, nutrition, and hunger and bring all the various
agencies and all stakeholders in the room, and the
beneficiaries, together and work this out.
I don't know how practical it is to say we are going to
legislate that all anti-hunger and all nutrition programs will
fall under one committee, but a far less arduous task is to ask
the White House to do meetings with various people from various
agencies on this issue. These are solvable problems.
Let me just say one other thing here. My colleague, Mr.
Yoho, mentioned that we are tasked with reforming the SNAP
program. I get really nervous when I hear that. I want us to
first fund it adequately and I want us to make it work as best
as possible. The reason why we have all these other programs
that we are talking about is because there is a need, there is
a need that wasn't being met by the existing benefit, and that
is just a reality. And anybody who tells you, and I have to say
this, I really feel strongly about this, that this benefit is
enough ought to live on it. Ms. Tussler talked about the 76
year old woman Molly who because of what this Committee did in
the farm bill saw her benefit go from $90 to $16 a month. That
is crazy.
So let's organize, let's try to get the White House to take
leadership on this, and let's figure out how best to do this.
Let me say one last thing here because I want to make sure
the record is corrected on this. We heard a couple of times
mentioned the guy who is a surfer on food stamps. That is not
the reality of the program, and it is our job to tell anybody
who says it is that it isn't. The majority of people on this
program are kids, are senior citizens, are those who are
disabled. And of those who are able-bodied, the majority of
them work.
Given the opportunity between working at a job that pays a
wage where I wouldn't have to rely on this benefit or a job
that I have to work full-time and I still need to rely on SNAP,
we know what people would decide. So let's not demonize this
program by taking some examples that may have appeared on some
news show. I won't mention the name of the news show.
But the point of the matter is we ought to make sure that
the narrative that we are echoing here reflects the reality.
And we can do this. We also need to make sure that the funding
for these programs, for SNAP in particular, is adequate.
And I thank the Chairwoman for her indulgence.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
I just want to add my thanks to the panelists in this
hearing. I think this hearing today exemplifies why we are even
meeting on this Committee. We have heard good information. We
have heard information that there are efficiencies. We have
heard it from both sides that this issue with data is clearly
something that needs to be looked at, and that the fact-finding
that we are looking for is exactly what we found today.
And Ms. Tussler talked about over-regulation of the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which is exactly why we
want to look at these programs to have an actual in-depth look
at the past, the present, and the future, and what can we do
better, because we can always do better. That is really what
the focus of the Committee has been, and I think that is what
we have heard today, good, solid information that helps us make
decisions because you are the experts.
I very much appreciate you being here today. I appreciate
all the input.
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 question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture Nutrition
Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Supplementary Material Submitted by Kay E. Brown, Director, Education,
Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Insert
Ms. Brown. Well, rather than my own personal definition, I
had a feeling this was going to come up, so I brought the
definition----
Mr. Yoho. Thank you.
Ms. Brown.--that is used when they do the survey every year,
the kinds of questions that they ask.
Food insecurity is household members that were at times
uncertain of having or unable to acquire enough food for all
household members because they had insufficient money or other
resources. And then there are definitions below that for low
and very low.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. For the record, that is going to be entered
in there.
Food insecure--At times during the year, these households were
uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the
needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other
resources for food. Food-insecure households include those with low
food security and very low food security.
Low food security--These food-insecure households obtained enough
food to avoid substantially disrupting their eating patterns or
reducing food intake by using a variety of coping strategies, such as
eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance
programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries.
Very low food security--In these food-insecure households, normal
eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and
food intake was reduced at times during the year because they had
insufficient money or other resources for food.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Angela K. Rachidi, Ph.D., Research
Fellow in Poverty Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Insert
Mr. Yoho. I have one more question, and if you guys, if you
don't have time to answer this, if you could put it in a
written answer. We have heard over and over again that there
are a lot of programs doing the same thing. Is there a way to
centralize this so that we don't have two or three different
agencies and 18 different programs sending all this out for the
duplication?
And I understand the argument of the duplication, how it does
cover some people that might have been missed. But if we can
centralize, it will cut the cost and make it more effective. If
you could respond to that, it would be greatly appreciated.
I believe there are opportunities for coordination at the Federal
level that could improve efficiencies. The ultimate goal should be one
oversight agency that administers all the programs and a consolidation
of programs to the extent possible that maintains the need for
specialization. However, this would require a major restructuring that
would likely take years. In the meantime efforts to coordinate across
programs through the sharing of data, technology, and expertise could
be helpful. This includes access to data across Federal agencies,
consolidating the authorization and monitoring of retailers across
programs, and coordinating nutrition education programs. Centralizing
these functions and sharing data likely would increase efficiencies and
reduce costs.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Joseph Nader, Executive Chef, Levy
Restaurants and Detroit Lions; Volunteer Chef, Share Our Strength's
Cooking Matters
Insert 1
Mr. Yoho. I have one more question, and if you guys, if you
don't have time to answer this, if you could put it in a
written answer. We have heard over and over again that there
are a lot of programs doing the same thing. Is there a way to
centralize this so that we don't have two or three different
agencies and 18 different programs sending all this out for the
duplication?
And I understand the argument of the duplication, how it does
cover some people that might have been missed. But if we can
centralize, it will cut the cost and make it more effective. If
you could respond to that, it would be greatly appreciated.
There is some overlap in the child nutrition programs, but this
overlap is in their administration, not in the provision of food to
hungry kids. These programs are designed to work together to meet the
specific needs of children--providing food to kids where they are, when
they need it, and with the proper nutrition for their age. The
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is in fact
``supplemental''; it is not designed to meet the entire nutrition needs
of a family and the SNAP-Ed program teaches families how to shop for
and prepare healthy food on a budget.
School age kids from SNAP families sometimes eat breakfast at home
and bring a lunch to school. However, oftentimes those benefits may
have run out or food isn't available at home and children need a
healthy meal to do well in school. The meals are there for low-income
kids when they need them. There are 25 million children who could get a
free or reduced price lunch at school each day, but only 21.7 million
do so--and it is not the same kids every day. When school is out, the
Summer Food Service Program is intended to replace those meals,
unfortunately the serving model only works for a limited number of kids
and only 3.5 million children who are eligible are getting a meal. For
children not of school age, there is WIC, which provides a tailored
prescription of healthy food for early childhood development.
On to where there may be overlap. The child nutrition programs
operate in a public-private partnership model where private
organizations and local schools provide valuable services and healthy
food to kids, and the Federal Government reimburses the cost of the
meal. For example there are great programs after school at Boys and
Girls Clubs, YMCAs, churches and food bank. During the school year,
these organizations provide programming and a healthy snack. Over the
summer the same organizations may provide the same services, to the
same kids, and the same locations and times. However, they cannot use
the same Federal program. They have to flip to another program and fill
out a new application and fulfill new reporting requirements and have
slightly different meal standards and reimbursement rates and go
through another site inspection. Organizations share that this is an
unnecessary hassle and that they want to focus on providing great
education, athletic, and arts opportunities to children and not spend
their time on another bureaucracy doing the exact same thing they were
approved to do the week before when school was still in session. A
solution would be to streamline the CSFP and CACFP at-risk afterschool
meals program into one program for schools and nonprofit organizations
to operate more efficiently.
Insert 2
Mr. Moolenaar. . . .
What have you found helpful, if you would start us off,
engaging the private sector and kind of mobilizing resources
that way?
And if each of you could kind of respond to that as well.
Share Our Strength's Cooking Matters program teaches participants
to shop smarter, use nutrition information to make healthier choices
and cook delicious, affordable meals. Founded in 1993, Cooking Matters
and thousands of volunteer instructors have helped more than 265,000
low-income families in communities across the country learn how to eat
better for less. Cooking Matters is an example of collaboration between
nonprofit organizations, private investment, and public sector funds.
The Walmart Foundation is the national sponsor of Cooking Matters and
many private companies provide funding to local organizations, like
food banks or community centers, to support their Cooking Matters
programs.
SNAP-Ed (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--Education) is a
Federal-state partnership that supports nutrition education for persons
eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
formerly known as food stamps. The goal of SNAP-Ed is to provide
educational programs and conduct social marketing campaigns that
increase the likelihood that people eligible for SNAP will make healthy
food choices within a limited budget.
Cooking Matters partners across the country receive SNAP-Ed funding
for their nutrition education work. In Massachusetts, the support
provided by SNAP-Ed through the Massachusetts Department of
Transitional Assistance has allowed the program to offer approximately
60 6-week courses and 100 Cooking Matters at the Store tours each year,
serving almost 1,300 SNAP beneficiaries.
In Maine, Cooking Matters is operated through the Good Shepherd
Food Bank. The Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
administers SNAP-Ed and it is implemented through a contract with the
University of New England (UNE). The public SNAP-Ed funding is
complemented by private funds from Hannaford and the Walmart
Foundation, and with funds from Share Our Strength's national
organization, including curriculum development and materials.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Sherrie Tussler, Executive
Director, Hunger Task Force
June 5, 2015
Hon. Ted S. Yoho,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Congressman Yoho:
I had the opportunity to testify to you on Duplication in the
Federal Nutrition Assistance Programs on May 20, 2015. At that time,
you were interested to know if there was any one solution to the
concern for duplication:
I have one more question, and if you guys, if you don't have
time to answer this, if you could put it in a written answer.
We have heard over and over again that there are a lot of
programs doing the same thing. Is there a way to centralize
this so that we don't have two or three different agencies and
18 different programs sending all this out for the duplication?
And I understand the argument of the duplication, how it does
cover some people that might have been missed. But if we can
centralize, it will cut the cost and make it more effective. If
you could respond to that, it would be greatly appreciated.
The Federal nutrition programs are directed through various state
agencies and their authority is further delegated to community
institutions like welfare offices, clinics, schools or food banks. Each
of these state agencies and later, its local administrative
counterpart, is required to maintain proof of eligibility for specific
programs. Often, this means multiple levels of qualification for
seemingly duplicative programs which often have similar income
benchmarks.
I would suggest that current technology used in combination with a
single Federal nutrition program eligibility test could reduce
burdensome duplication and ease barriers to program access for
vulnerable people. Significant cost savings would ultimately be
realized by substantially reducing program administrative costs through
modernized data sharing.
Federal and state governments possess a great deal of data about
individuals including date and place of birth, household size, address,
income, conviction status and assets. Existing information could be
accessed by a single qualifying state-run organization to determine
eligibility for the Federal nutrition programs like the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Women Infants and Children (WIC)
and School Meals. Cards would be issued to qualified individual
recipients, and point of service terminals would read eligibility based
on income and age.
SNAP and WIC rely on debit card technology to spend resources. If
this debit card technology were also employed for school meal programs,
people eligible to receive benefits could swipe their card before
receipt of service. For example, I keep my health insurance card in my
wallet and it is accepted at a doctor's office, a pharmacy and a
hospital. A ``food insurance'' card could be issued to qualified
individuals who would swipe it to prove eligibility at the store, a
farmers market or school meals line.
A unified School Meals Program could eliminate both the Child and
Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and the Summer Food Service Program
(SFSP), providing year-round healthy meals to all children 18 or
younger (21 or younger if disabled) at their school or child care
facility. This would significantly reduce burdensome reporting at
schools, child and adult care settings, summer programs, and after
school sites.
Another simplification could occur when seniors would be eligible
for either SNAP or home delivered meals--whichever was most relevant
based upon their housing status and ability. The Commodity Supplemental
Food Program (CSFP) and Senior Nutrition Programs could be
discontinued, and resources could be reinvested in providing sufficient
SNAP benefits to be healthy, or home delivered meals for the frail who
are no longer able to shop or cook.
Finally, The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) could be
eliminated. Under this scenario, all people with household income at
135% of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL) would receive SNAP benefits
sufficient to purchase food for their household members at the grocery
store. Food banks, food pantries and soup kitchens could be closed when
people relying on them are given SNAP/WIC or School Meals assistance
sufficient to no longer need charity. Funding currently used to
purchase Federal commodities and provide agricultural price supports
would go directly into funding SNAP. While eliminating the purchase of
Federal commodities could result in initial variability of food
pricing, ultimately food producers would rebalance and grow only the
foods desired by people shopping for food. Significant cost savings
could occur as the USDA stops subsidizing agribusiness.
As you consider these ideas, I encourage you to think about how
many of the Federal nutrition programs have direct linkages to
agricultural price supports and food producers. These programs manage
excesses in production by directing foods into school nutrition
programs, senior meal programs and commodity distributions like CSFP
and TEFAP.
Recognizing these interrelationships have a purpose extraordinary
to ``feeding the poor'' is critical as you consider broad changes to
the food system.
Programs like SNAP and WIC that offer food buying power also are
economic drivers in local communities. They are money to buy food and,
as such, buoy our economy and assure markets for farmers, retailers and
the transportation industry. Decreases in SNAP hurt these businesses
and shift the burden for supporting farmers back to government as the
balance between supply and demand shift.
Everyone wants less government. Everyone wants programs that are
operated effectively. Everyone wants a healthy economy and a strong
food system. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you ever
visit Milwaukee we hope you stop in to see us!
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sherrie Tussler,
Executive Director.
______
Submitted Letter by Barb Packett, Chair, Education/Public Policy
Committee, National CSFP Association
May 29, 2015
Hon. Jackie Walorski,
Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Nutrition,
House Agriculture Committee,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. James P. McGovern,
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Nutrition,
House Agriculture Committee,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Representatives Walorski and McGovern,
Thank you for your leadership in working to strengthen America's
Federal nutrition programs.
The Nutrition Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee held
a hearing on May 20, 2015 entitled ``The Past, Present, and Future of
SNAP.'' During that hearing there was testimony regarding additional
Federal nutrition programs, including the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program (CSFP) serving seniors. Although the testimony regarding CSFP
was overwhelmingly positive, there were two comments that questioned
the quality of the food in CSFP. The National CSFP Association (NCSFPA)
was concerned that those comments were inaccurate and may contribute to
an unfair impression of the quality of food available in CSFP.
Specifically, one speaker criticized the quality of beef stew
available in CSFP. Please note that USDA no longer provides USDA
labeled commodities through their nutrition programs. The goods
available today through programs such as CSFP are commercially labeled.
The same beef stew available through CSFP may be found on grocery store
shelves throughout America. To their credit, USDA has been very
intentional about purchasing foods that provide the best nutrition
(i.e., canned vegetables with reduced sodium, fruits in extra light
syrup, whole-wheat noodles, low fat cheese, etc.). Some of those food
package improvements are highlighted in Attachment A. One of the great
benefits of CSFP is that it provides a nutritionally balanced monthly
food package to vulnerable seniors each month. Within each of the food
categories (i.e., meats, fruits, vegetables, and grains), there are a
variety of products from which to choose. This flexibility helps to
address regional, cultural, dietary, and personal preferences. In the
example of beef stew, if beef stew is unpopular in a particular region,
the CSFP program operator need not order beef stew and may order from
among several other meat choices.
There was a second reference to the undesirability of grapefruit
juice. In fact, grapefruit juice has not been available in CSFP since
2004, over eleven years ago.
The NCSFPA understands that one of the purposes of the
Subcommittee's hearing was to identify where overlap, duplication, or
inefficiency exists within our Federal nutrition programs. The NCSFPA
believes that CSFP operates very efficiently and plays a unique role in
supporting the health of vulnerable seniors through improved nutrition.
In fact, an April 2014 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
entitled `Creating a 21st Century Government: Enhancing Productivity
and Achieving Cost Savings by Reducing Fragmentation, Duplication, and
Overlap' (Attachment B) reported:
Domestic Food Assistance (area 29, 2011) In February, the
President signed into law the Agricultural Act of 2014, which
included a provision that addresses an area of duplication
identified by GAO, between the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). Pursuant to this
provision, CSFP will focus on serving seniors, while pregnant
and postpartum women, infants, and children needing assistance
in the future will be served through the WIC program.
Any perceived duplication related to CSFP was addressed when it
transitioned to a seniors-only program.
CSFP supports senior health through improved nutrition. Hundreds of
grassroots charities, with the aid of thousands of volunteers, delivery
nutritionally balanced food packages to 600,000 vulnerable seniors each
month. The NCSFPA is also pleased to report that USDA is an excellent
partner in this endeavor. Of particular note is the initiative USDA has
demonstrated in continually working to advance improvements in the
nutritional quality of the CSFP food package.
CSFP is a shining example of what is working well in the arena of
our Federal nutrition programs. Thank you for supporting successful
program such as CSFP. We also want to thank the House Agriculture
Committee and Congress for their action, establishing CSFP as an
elderly-only program. Additionally, we want to thank the GAO for
acknowledging the change to the CSFP program. If you have any
questions, you may contact either Frank Kubik [redacted], Barb Packett
[redacted], or Mark Lowry [redacted].
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Barb Packett, Chair,
Education/Public Policy Committee,
National CSFP Association.
CC:
Nicole Scott,
Lisa Shelton,
Frank Kubik,
Mark Lowry.
attachment a
Recent CSFP Food Package Improvements
In 2011, USDA began offering one percent ultra-high
temperature fluid milk (UHT milk) to replace evaporated whole
milk in CSFP. UHT milk has less calories, saturated fat, total
fat, and cholesterol per serving than the evaporated milk
traditionally offered in the program.
In 2011, USDA lowered the sodium level in reduced-fat cheese
from 340 milligrams (mg) to between 150 to 225 mg per \3/4\
ounce serving. USDA began offering reduced-fat cheese in place
of full fat cheese in the CSFP food package in 2005. Reduced-
fat cheese has only 3 grams of total fat, 2 grams of saturated
fat, and 10 grams of cholesterol per a \3/4\ ounce serving.
Beginning in 2011, most canned fruits will be packed in
extra light sucrose syrup instead of light syrup to reduce
added sugars, particularly high fructose corn sweetener.
Sucrose is ordinary table sugar.
Beginning in 2011, some canned vegetables, such as whole
kernel corn and whole and diced tomatoes are being offered with
no salt added. This is a further improvement upon changes made
in 2010, when the sodium level in all USDA canned vegetables
was reduced to 140 mg or less per \1/2\ cup serving, a level
which meets the Food and Drug Administration's definition for
`low sodium' foods. Sodium levels in the meatless spaghetti
sauce were also reduced to 140 mg per \1/2\ cup serving in
2010.
In 2009, USDA began offering whole-wheat rotini, as an
alternative to CSFP's other pasta and rice products. With 2
grams of dietary fiber per \1/2\ cup serving, whole-wheat
rotini further brought the CSFP food package in line with the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
In 2007, USDA changed the specification for canned chicken
to allow only chicken without skin. This lowered the fat
content of the product and brought it [in] line with
recommendations made in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans.
USDA offers salmon as an alternative Protein category food
item in the CSFP food package. Salmon provides 25 percent of
the daily recommended amount of calcium.
USDA also offers other food items in the CSFP food package,
such as unsweetened apple sauce and whole grain cereals that
meet the principles of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
September 2011.
attachment b
Creating a 21st Century Government: Enhancing Productivity and
Achieving Cost Savings by Reducing Fragmentation, Duplication,
and Overlap
Executive Summary
Since the beginning of the Administration, the President has
made it a priority to identify and eliminate inefficient,
unnecessary, or duplicative spending.
The Administration is committed to continuing to make
progress in this important area through the President's Second
Term Management Agenda, building on efforts to reduce
administrative overhead, cut improper payments, reduce real
estate costs, reform military acquisition, and consolidate data
centers.
The Administration is also continuing efforts to reorganize
and consolidate Federal programs to reduce duplication and
improve efficiency; and the President is again asking Congress
to revive an authority that Presidents had for almost the
entire period from 1932 through 1984--the ability to submit
proposals to reorganize the Executive Branch via a fast-track
procedure. In effect, the President is asking to have the same
authority that any business owner has to reorganize or
streamline operations to meet changing circumstances and
customer demand.
While we wait for Congress to take action on this proposal,
the Administration continues to use existing authorities to
reorganize government and make it more efficient. For example,
the Administration has already taken action to consolidate a
number of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) education programs designed to enable more strategic
investment in STEM education and more critical evaluation of
outcomes. The President's FY 2015 Budget included a number of
specific proposals to address duplication and overlap in the
Federal Government, such as a fresh government-wide
reorganization of STEM education programs, streamlining Farm
Service Agency operations and expanding the use of strategic
sourcing to leverage the buying power of the government. And
the Administration has targeted unnecessary or lower priority
programs for reduction or elimination, such as proposing to
cancel the Defense Department's Ground Combat Vehicle Program
based on the recommendation of our uniformed military
leadership.
In each of the President's first three Budgets, the
Administration identified, on average, more than 150
terminations, reductions, and savings proposals, totaling
nearly $25 billion each year. In the 2013 and 2014 Budgets, the
Administration detailed more than 200 cuts, consolidations, and
savings proposals, again totaling roughly $25 billion each
year. The President's FY 2015 Budget included 136 cuts,
consolidations, and savings proposals, which are projected to
save nearly $17 billion in 2015. The cuts, consolidations, and
savings proposals this year reflect the deep spending
reductions that occurred in 2013, some of which have continued
in 2014, and the fact that many of the Administration's
previous cuts, consolidations, and savings proposals have now
been implemented.
The President's Second Term Management Agenda represents a
comprehensive and forward-looking plan to deliver better,
faster, and smarter services to citizens and businesses;
increase quality and value in the government's core
administrative functions and continue efforts to enhance
productivity and achieve cost savings across the government;
open government-funded data and research to the public to spur
innovation and economic growth; and unlock the full potential
of today's Federal workforce and build the workforce we need
for tomorrow. The Agenda reflects the Administration's
commitment to building a government that focuses on results and
draws on evidence-based practices to ensure that every taxpayer
dollar is used wisely and to the maximum effect.
The Administration has established a Cross-Agency Priority
Goal for each of the main components of the President's
Management Agenda, as well as for a number of mission-focused
priorities. These goals help ensure coordination on priorities
that involve multiple departments and agencies. Each of the
Cross-Agency Priority Goals is posted on Performance.gov
(http://www.performance.gov/cap-goals-list?view=public), the
Administration's performance tracking website, which will be
updated to include regular status updates.
On April 8, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
released its fourth annual report identifying opportunities for
Congress and the Executive Branch to reduce fragmentation,
duplication, and overlap, and achieve cost savings across the
Federal Government. In addition, GAO provided a progress report
on its previous recommendations. The Administration appreciates
the valuable work GAO continues to do on this important topic.
GAO's findings recognize the progress that has been made in
addressing the recommendations previously identified in its
reports. For example:
GAO found that Congress and the Executive Branch have
made progress on addressing 130 of the 162 (80 percent)
broad areas needing attention.
GAO found that the Executive Branch addressed or
partially addressed 267 of the 323 (83 percent) recommended
actions directed to the Executive Branch.
GAO found that Congress addressed or partially
addressed 28 of the 66 (42 percent) recommended actions
directed to Congress.
The GAO report also included a set of 26 new
recommendations, which the Administration is beginning to
analyze. An initial review indicates that the Administration is
already taking action to coordinate across agencies in many of
the areas identified in the new recommendations. The
Administration will carefully review the new recommendations to
identify all opportunities to reduce fragmentation, overlap,
and duplication and to achieve other financial benefits.
Many of GAO's recommendations deal with some of the most
complex and challenging areas across the Federal Government.
Fully addressing them is a long-term process that in many cases
will take years to implement--a fact that GAO recognizes.
The Administration looks forward to continuing to work with
GAO and Congress to maximize the value of every taxpayer dollar
while increasing the productivity and quality of services.
Administration Efforts to Reduce Duplication and Improve Efficiencies
Under the President's direction, the Administration is working to
deliver a 21st Century Government that is more effective, efficient,
and supportive of economic growth. The President is committed to
creating a government that will make a significant, tangible, and
positive difference in the lives of the American people and the
economy, and to driving lasting change in how government works.
In 2011, the President and Vice President launched the Campaign to
Cut Waste, identifying numerous initiatives to cut inefficient and
unnecessary spending and make government more effective, resulting in
billions in savings and program consolidations and eliminations, some
of which are highlighted below. In addition, the President's FY 2013
Budget established the first-ever government-wide Cross-Agency Priority
Goals (http://archive-goals.performance.gov/sites/default/files/images/
Report.pdf), which promote coordination across agencies and programs in
areas which deliver positive impact for the American people. For
example, as part of the cross agency efforts to support the President's
National Export Initiative, the Department of Commerce, as Chair of the
Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC), has taken actions to
help achieve a record level of exports of $2.3 trillion in 2013, which
supported an additional 1.3 million U.S. jobs.
While the Administration has made notable progress in many areas,
Congressional action could lead to further gains. February 2012, the
President submitted for the first time a proposal to Congress to
reinstate Presidential authority to reorganize Federal agencies to
reduce the number of duplicative and overlapping government programs.
And each of the President's Budget's has included cuts, consolidations,
and savings proposals that would improve efficiency and save tens of
billions of taxpayer dollars. For example, the President's 2015 Budget
included 136 cuts, consolidations, and savings proposals, which are
projected to save nearly $17 billion in 2015.
Ongoing Administration efforts to achieve cost savings and maximize
the value of government investments include:
Reorganizing STEM Education Programs. The President's FY
2015 Budget proposes a fresh government-wide reorganization of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education programs designed to enable more strategic investment
in STEM education and more critical evaluation of outcomes. In
2012, there were more than 200 STEM education programs across
government. Already, a substantial number of program
consolidations and eliminations have been implemented or will
be completed this year largely through administrative action.
The Budget continues to reduce STEM fragmentation by proposing
33 additional program consolidations or eliminations, and
focuses ongoing efforts around the five key areas identified by
the Federal STEM Education 5-Year Strategic Plan.
Modifying the Medicare Provider Payment. The FY 2015 Budget
contains proposals that build on initiatives included in the
Affordable Care Act to help extend Medicare's solvency while
encouraging provider efficiencies and improved patient care.
Specifically, the FY 2015 Budget modifies and restructures
payments to certain providers to address payments that exceed
patient care costs, increase efficiency and reduce waste, and
recoups excess payments to manufacturers. For example, the
Budget proposes to align Medicare payments for drugs with
Medicaid rebate policies for low-income beneficiaries. It
continues to crack down on fraud and creates more efficient,
bundled payments for post-acute care providers. These, along
with other Medicare proposals, would save more than $400
billion and extend the solvency of the Hospital Insurance trust
fund by approximately 5 more years.
Cutting Improper Payments. When the President took office in
2009, the improper payment rate was 5.42 percent and rising.
Since then, the Administration, working with the Congress,
significantly reduced improper payments through yearly reviews
by agency Inspectors General and expanded requirements for high
priority programs. This strengthened accountability and
transparency in payments resulted in the improper payment rate
declining to 3.53 percent in 2013 when factoring in DOD
commercial payments. Furthermore, agencies recovered more than
$22 billion in overpayments through payment recapture audits
and other methods in 2013.
Saving on Real Property Costs. In 2012, the Administration
issued a Freeze the Footprint policy and directed agencies to
freeze the growth in their real estate inventory. Through this
effort, the Administration works, in collaboration with the
Federal Real Property Council, to improve the quality of real
property inventory data and to develop key performance metrics.
In 2014, the Administration will begin publicly tracking the
government's adherence to a fixed baseline of 730.2 million
square feet of office and warehouse space. Agencies will
continue to pursue mobile workforce strategies and tighter
internal controls on space acquisitions. In addition, the
Budget proposes the Civilian Property Realignment Act (CPRA),
which would create an independent board of private and public
sector real estate experts that would make recommendations to
the Congress on properties that should be sold, consolidated,
co-located, or reconfigured. Legislation to create CPRA would
help to streamline the disposal process, generate $2 billion in
savings through the disposal of excess properties, and provide
funds for real property reinvestment. Further, modernization
would support the consolidation of the Federal real estate
inventory and help reduce the government's operating costs.
Consolidating Data Centers. Under the President's Federal
Data Center Consolidation Initiative, the Administration is
working to optimize and consolidate Federal data centers across
the nation. Agencies are pursuing a dual track strategy: making
their core, or most important data centers, operate more
efficiently and closing down their non-core data centers and
shifting workloads to lower-cost, optimized options, like cloud
providers. Since agencies began executing their data center
consolidation plans in 2011, more than 700 data centers have
been closed (a complete listing of these can be found on
Data.gov), leading to a net reduction in data centers for the
first time in over a decade. At the remaining data centers,
agencies have been lowering the costs of operations through
greater energy efficiency, greater utilization of servers, and
other improved operating practices. These savings are being
reported through the PorfolioStat process.
Expanding Strategic Sourcing. The Administration's efforts
to better leverage the government's buying power through the
use of strategic sourcing has saved over $300 million since
2010 on commonly purchased goods such as office supplies and
services such as package delivery. For example, creation of
central vehicles that can be used by all Federal agencies has
reduced contract duplication and reduced prices for some common
office supplies by over 65 percent. Such efforts save taxpayer
dollars directly through reduced prices and duplication that
allows agencies to focus scarce human capital resources on more
complex, mission-critical efforts.
Expanding Shared Services. Today, many agencies are spending
too much time and money on administrative and operating
functions that are not central to their core mission and shared
by other agencies. These functions could be handled by Federal
Shared Service Providers (SSPs), reducing duplication and costs
while increasing quality of services through concentrated
expertise. In some administrative areas, the government has
already coalesced around a small number of SSPs. For example,
payroll services are provided for all Federal agencies by
service centers at the Departments of Agriculture, the
Interior, Defense (DOD), State, and the General Services
Administration. In the largest financial management shared
service arrangement established to date, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development has signed an interagency
agreement with the Department of the Treasury to transition all
of its core financial management functions to Treasury
beginning in 2015. The Administration will continue to drive
efficiencies and cost savings by increasing the performance and
capacity of the SSPs.
Continuing PortfolioStat. In 2012, OMB initiated the
PortfolioStat process, a data-driven effort with agencies to
examine IT portfolios and identify common areas of spending to
decrease duplication and drive down costs. As a result of
PortfolioStat, agencies reported nearly $1.6 billion in savings
and identified more than $2.5 billion in savings that could be
achieved over the 2013-2015 period. The Administration is
committed to continuing the PortfolioStat process to drive
further management improvements, save billions of dollars
across the Federal Government, and improve services to
Americans through the effective use of technology.
Expanding Federal Cloud Computing. The governments is
transforming its IT portfolio through cloud computing, giving
agencies the ability to purchase IT services in a utility-based
model, paying for only the services consumed. As a result of
the Administration's Cloud First policy, Federal agencies
adopting cloud-based IT systems are increasing operational
efficiencies, resource utilization, and innovation. To
accelerate the pace of cloud adoption, the Administration
established the Federal Risk Authorization Management Program
(FedRAMP), a government-wide program standardizing how we
secure cloud solutions. To further grow the use of cloud-based
services and improve customer service, the government is
working to establish a credential exchange system that allows
citizens and businesses to securely access online services at
different agencies without the need for multiple digital
identities and passwords.
Consolidating Business and Trade Promotion into a Single
Department. As the President indicated in 2012, if given
Presidential reorganization authority, the first proposal would
be to consolidate a number of trade and economic development
agencies and programs into a new Department with a focused
mission to foster economic growth and spur job creation. By
bringing together the core tools to expand trade and
investment, grow small businesses, and support innovation, this
reorganization would help American businesses compete in the
global economy, expand exports, and create more jobs at home.
Reforming Military Acquisition. The military services and
defense agencies have a portfolio of 81 ongoing major weapon
system acquisition programs, and DOD contracts account for
approximately 70 percent of all Federal procurement. The Budget
continues to invest in DOD's Better Buying Power (BBP) reform,
charting a path to greater productivity in the military
acquisition system. New BBP initiatives enforce affordability
caps, measure cost performance, and align contractor
profitability with acquisition goals. DOD-instituted best
practices for procurement include applying lessons learned,
expanding strategic sourcing, establishing acquisition
professional reviews, and instituting peer reviews to ensure
effective competition. These actions help further the
Administration's ongoing government-wide goal to ensure smarter
and more fiscally responsible buying across government.
Eliminating the Preventive Health and Health Services Block
Grant. The FY 2015 President's Budget eliminates the Preventive
Health and Health Services Block Grant (PHHSBG) program given
duplication with other public health programs. The PHHSBG
activities could be more effectively and efficiently
implemented through the State Public Health Actions to Prevent
and Control Diabetes, Heart Disease, Obesity and Associated
Risk Factors and Promote School Health program, which provides
resources to states to coordinate activities across categorical
funding streams.
Restructuring Army Aviation. The Budget proposes to
restructure the Army aviation fleet in order to eliminate
duplication, focus resources on the most capable aircraft, and
realign force structure according to operational need. This
proposal divests older, less capable aircraft and replaces them
with more capable Apaches teamed with unmanned aerial vehicles
for armed reconnaissance, and LUH-72 Lakota helicopters for
training missions. The Army also proposes transferring Apache
helicopters from the National Guard to the Active Army and
transferring Blackhawk helicopters from the Active Army to the
National Guard to better meet operational demands.
Reforming Crop Insurance Program. The Budget proposes to
reduce Federal subsidies for disproportionately subsidized
plans that benefit primarily wealthy corporate farmers and to
reduce overpayments to private crop insurance companies.
Reforming Federal crop insurance by reducing subsidies for
overly generous coverage is projected to save $14 billion over
the next 10 years.
Reforming the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA).
The Budget proposes a series of FECA reforms that act on past
GAO recommendations to improve and update the program. These
reforms would generate government-wide savings of more than
$340 million over 10 years.
Reforming Government-wide Grants and Financial Assistance
Policies. In 2013, the Administration issued consolidated
guidance that streamlines eight Federal regulations into a
single, comprehensive policy. The new guidance is a key
component of the Administration's effort to more effectively
focus the $600 billion awarded annually for grants and other
types of financial assistance on improving performance and
outcomes while ensuring the financial integrity of taxpayer
dollars.
Eliminating the Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program.
The Budget proposes to eliminate the Diesel Emissions Reduction
Grant program in FY 2015, one of the programs identified in
GAO's 2012 report under ``Diesel Emissions''. The program has
helped to reduce pollution emissions through engine retrofits,
rebuilds, and replacements. The remaining legacy diesel fleets
will be reduced over time as they are replaced with engines
that meet modern emission standards.
Streamline Farm Service Agency (FSA) Operations. The FSA is
focused on ensuring that it has the right workforce in the
right places to deliver the best customer service possible. FSA
has conducted a review of 2,100 field offices, and in an effort
to modernize its field structure proposes closing or
consolidating 250 offices as part of streamlining efforts that
will save an estimated total of $39 million in 2015.
Improving Administrative Benchmarking. Federal agencies
often do not have the tools to measure their performance in key
administrative areas such as human resources, finance, IT, and
real property. Beginning in 2014 and continuing in 2015, the
Administration will leverage the Executive Councils, which
represent the chief administrative and operating officials at
Federal agencies, to establish cost, quality, and performance
benchmarks in each of these key areas.
Many of these efforts overlap with opportunities identified by GAO
for important government-wide and program-specific costs savings and
efficiencies.
Progress on GAO's 2011, 2012, and 2013 Recommendations to the Executive
Branch
GAO also has taken an active role in analyzing the structure of the
Federal Government and recommending areas to reduce duplication and
fragmentation. In 2011, GAO began annual reporting on specific
opportunities for the Federal Government to reduce duplication,
overlap, and fragmentation and to pursue other financial opportunities.
The GAO also released annual reports in 2012 and 2013, and on April 8,
2014 released its fourth annual report.
In total, the first three GAO reports include more than 162 issue
areas, many of which require the coordination of multiple Federal
agencies or Congressional committees to address. In almost all areas,
fully completing a recommended consolidation or reform takes time--a
fact that GAO recognizes. Despite this challenge, the Administration is
committed to getting the job done.
An initial look at GAO's 2014 report indicates that it recognizes
that significant progress is being made.
GAO found that Congress and the Executive Branch have made
progress on addressing 130 of the 162 (80 percent) broad areas
needing attention.
In terms of specific recommended actions within these broad
areas, GAO found that the Executive Branch addressed or
partially addressed 267 of the 323 (83 percent) recommended
actions directed to the Executive Branch.
GAO found that Congress addressed or partially addressed 28
of the 66 (42 percent) recommended actions directed to
Congress.
Selected accomplishments in areas where GAO previously made
recommendations include:
Homelessness Program (area 30, 2011). The U.S. Interagency
Council on Homelessness (ICH) is fully addressing the GAO
recommendations related to improving interagency collaboration.
ICH has provided strong leadership on cross-cutting homeless
issues, and has forged substantive links between agencies to
improve coordination and targeting, obtain better data and
improve outreach efforts. These and other ICH collaborative
efforts are essential to achieving the goals outlined in the
Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness. In
addition, the 2015 President's Budget proposes to transfer
funding for the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter (EFS) program
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). By
allowing HUD to administer this program, the Administration is
aligning its dedicated homeless assistance resources, avoiding
duplication between programs, and ensuring that the funding
appropriated for EFS assists in meeting the goals of the
Federal Strategic Plan.
Housing Assistance (area 28, 2012). While the Administration
has not proposed consolidating housing loan programs, the
Administration is evaluating opportunities to improve programs
through increased coordination among housing credit agencies.
From 2011-2013, the Rental Policy Working Group
implemented a two-round pilot in six states to test the
feasibility of conducting a single physical inspection in a
sample of jointly subsidized multifamily housing properties
that would satisfy all agencies' inspection requirements.
In 2014, the Working Group is expanding the pilot to over
20 states.
In 2011, HUD implemented the Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) Pilot to align Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) processing of mortgage insurance
applications with the tight external deadlines imposed by
the LIHTC program. In March 2014, FHA implemented several
revisions to the LIHTC Pilot to provide more flexibility
and make it available to a wider array of projects.
Economic Development Programs (area 9, 2011). The
Administration has launched a major initiative--BusinessUSA--
aimed at addressing duplication issues in economic development
programs identified in the GAO report. BusinessUSA, which was
launched in 2012 and continues to grow, is a one-stop shop for
businesses looking for Federal business assistance. The
Administration also continues to request broader reorganization
authority from Congress to improve the effectiveness and cost-
efficiency of Federal programs as described previously.
Department of Homeland Security Grants Consolidation (area
26, 2011; area 17, 2012). The President has proposed reforming
the structure of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
grants by creating the National Preparedness Grant Program
(NPGP) which would focus resources on building and sustaining
core capabilities associated with the five mission areas of the
National Preparedness Goal. As proposed, NPGP would break down
existing program silos and shift the focus away from awarding
funds based on state formulas toward a capability-enhancing
regional approach. The new program would not be bound by a
formula-based allocation, but would use competition and risk-
informed assessments to close the gaps identified in a
comprehensive Threat, Hazard, Identification and Risk Analyses
(THIRAs), which are the product of a nation-wide needs
assessment coordinated by FEMA. Investment justifications would
be assessed by FEMA with significant regional input, with the
goal of meeting specific response-level targets nationwide.
Support for Entrepreneurs (area 7, 2012). The Department of
Commerce (DOC), Small Business Administration (SBA), and
Department of Agriculture (USDA) continue to make progress on
improving program evaluation and performance metrics in
programs designed to spur entrepreneurship. All three agencies
are part of an interagency working group that is looking at the
information currently collected on these technical assistance
programs and what further information is needed to fully track
their impact. BusinessUSA is also encouraging interagency
collaboration on entrepreneurial development assistance
programs.
Defense Warfighter Urgent Needs (area 3, 2011). The
Department of Defense has performed internal analysis and taken
steps to streamline organizations and processes intended to
address the urgent needs of warfighters. Two studies examining
potential overlap or duplication in these efforts were provided
in a May 2013 report to Congress on the ``Review of Acquisition
Processes for Rapid Fielding of Capabilities in Response to
Urgent Operations Needs.'' The result indicated that further
consolidation was not currently needed, but highlighted that
the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Task Force was no
longer operational and JIEDDO is being realigned as a permanent
organization within the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (Intelligence). These steps combined with guidance from
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 3170.01H, ``Joint
Capabilities and Development System'', and the Department of
Defense Directive 5000.71, ``Rapid Fulfillment of Combat
Commander Urgent Operational Needs'', should lead to greater
effectiveness and less duplication in supporting the
warfighter.
Employment and Training (area 32, 2011). The Administration
has taken a number of steps to improve coordination and
alignment across Federal training and employment programs. The
Workforce Innovation Fund, launched last year, supports state,
regional, and local efforts to work across program silos to
produce better employment outcomes for job-seekers and workers;
the 2015 Budget continues this program, along with a request
for broader waiver authority to give grantees more room to
innovate. The Administration has also sought greater
flexibility to blend funding in exchange for greater
accountability for outcomes. For example, its proposed
Performance Partnership Pilot authority was enacted in the 2014
Omnibus and will permit greater cross-program work to achieve
better outcomes for disconnected youth. The Administration has
also recommended targeted consolidations that would reduce
overlap without adversely affecting vulnerable populations,
like the Veterans Workforce Investment Program, which was
eliminated in 2013 and its funding redirected to other
veterans' employment activities. The 2015 Budget includes a New
Career Pathways program that would provide individuals who lose
their jobs with a single set of core services, consolidating
two narrowly targeted programs. Last, the President has
directed the Vice President to lead an interagency Job-Driven
Training review to suggest changes to make training and
employment programs more responsive to employers and the labor
market, easier for job seekers to navigate, and more
accountable for the employment outcomes they produce. This
review will include recommendations to promote better alignment
across programs.
Baggage Screening Systems (area 78, 2011). The
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) continues to
invest in in-line explosives detection systems (EDS) for
baggage screening. In-line configurations integrate the EDS
equipment into the baggage handling system, allowing TSA to
achieve operational improvements and staffing efficiencies. GAO
reported in 2011 that these systems have the potential to
generate significant cost savings for TSA. TSA estimates that
in-line baggage screening systems have yielded a cumulative
savings of $200 million and over 3,000 full time equivalent
positions through FY 2014. The 2015 Budget estimates an
additional $22 million in savings as a result of in-line
baggage screening projects.
DOD's Coordination of Counter-Improvised Explosive Device
Efforts and Timeline for Counter-Improvised Explosive Device
Database Implementation (area 4, 2012). In response to GAO's
February 2012 recommendation, the Joint IED Defeat Organization
(JIEDDO) developed the counter-IED initiative alternatives
analysis process to help ensure that selected solutions are
fully vetted to identify and reduce unnecessary duplication,
overlap and fragmentation before being funded. JIEDDO has also
developed a department-wide counter-IED efforts database, as
GAO recommended in February 2012. JIEDDO now captures
information derived from various sources to better
comprehensively coordinate all DOD counter-IED efforts, thereby
limiting and reducing the risk of duplication in its
multibillion-dollar counter-improvised explosive device
efforts.
Passenger Aviation Security Fees (area 48, 2012). The
President's Budget proposes an increase in the TSA aviation
security passenger fee to cover a greater percent of the costs
of TSA passenger and baggage screening and other aviation
security services. The Budget proposal builds on the fee
increase enacted in December through the Bipartisan Budget Act,
which the Administration believes was an important step in
bringing fees back in line with security costs. In 2012, GAO
reported that increasing the TSA aviation passenger security
fee could help offset billions of dollars in the Federal budget
for aviation security programs and activities.
Auto Recovery Office within DOL (area 50, 2012). The
Department of Labor is in the final stages of terminating the
Office of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers. While this
Office was an instrumental part of the Administration's
successful restructuring efforts of the American automotive
industry, it has completed its mission.
Combat Uniforms (area 2, 2013). The Department of Defense
(DOD) developed and issued joint criteria for new camouflage
uniforms, which are designed to provide equivalent levels of
performance and protection, minimize risk to service members,
and provide interoperability for future military ground combat
uniforms.
Employment for People with Disabilities (area 10, 2012). In
addition to the actions GAO highlighted, the Administration has
undertaken the following actions to better reduce duplication,
overlap, and fragmentation among programs that serve people
with disabilities. The President's 2015 Budget requests new
authority and $400 million in new resources for the Social
Security Administration (SSA), in partnership with other
Federal agencies, to test innovative strategies to help people
with disabilities remain in the workforce. Early-intervention
measures, such as supportive employment services for
individuals with mental impairments, targeted incentives for
employers to help workers with disabilities remain on the job,
and opportunities for states to better coordinate services,
have the potential to achieve long-term gains in the employment
and the quality of life of people with disabilities, and the
proposed demonstration authority will help build the evidence
base for future program improvements. The demonstration
proposals were developed through a comprehensive inter-agency
process, and additional detail can be found in SSA's
Congressional Justification. In addition, the Job-Driven
Training review being led by the Vice President will involve
several programs that serve individuals with disabilities, and
result in recommendations aimed at improving and better
aligning them with other programs to produce better outcomes
for individuals with disabilities.
Domestic Food Assistance (area 29, 2011). In February, the
President signed into law the Agricultural Act of 2014, which
included a provision that addresses an area of duplication
identified by GAO, between the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). Pursuant to this
provision, CSFP will focus on serving seniors, while pregnant
and postpartum women, infants, and children seeking assistance
in the future will be served through the WIC program.
Of actions GAO previously recommended for Executive Branch
attention which have not yet been addressed, many require longer-term
implementation strategies, which GAO recognizes in its report.
Personnel Background Investigations (area 11, 2012).
Following the September 2013 Navy Yard shooting, the President
directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to lead a
review of suitability and security clearance procedures for
Federal employees and contractors. The Administration released
a report detailing the findings of this review, identifying 13
recommendations to improve how the government performs
suitability determinations and security clearances, thereby
ensuring the safety of Federal workers and the protection of
our nation's most sensitive information. The report's
recommendations were developed by an interagency review team,
comprised of representatives from OMB, Office of the Director
of National Intelligence (ODNI), Office of Personnel Management
(OPM), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), the Information Security Oversight Office
(ISOO), and the National Security Council (NSC). The review
complements and builds upon DOD's Navy Yard Reviews, and
ongoing work by OPM, ODNI, and other agencies. The Review
assessed government policies, programs, processes, and
procedures involving determinations of Federal employee
suitability, contractor fitness, and personnel security. The
interagency working group also evaluated the collection,
sharing, processing, and storage of information used to make
suitability, credentialing, and security decisions. The Review
found the need for better information sharing, increased
oversight over background investigations, and consistent
application of standards and policies for both Federal
employees and contractors.
DOD-VA Electronic Health Record System (area 18, 2011).
While continuing efforts to enhance seamless integration of
health records, DOD and Veterans Affairs (VA) are on
complementary paths for modernizing their respective electronic
health record (EHR) systems. The VA/DOD Interagency Program
Office (IPO) will lead the Departments' efforts to implement
national health data standards for interoperability and is
responsible for establishing, monitoring, and approving the
clinical and technical standards profiles. The Departments and
the IPO will provide regular updates on EHR development and
acquisition efforts to the GAO.
Public Health Information Systems (area 20, 2011). The
Administration published the National Strategy for
BioSurveillance in July 2012 and the National BioSurveillance
Science and Technology Roadmap in June 2013, and is in the
process of evaluating current capabilities and planning for
improvements that will streamline the receipt and analysis of
essential information.
Social Security Offsets (area 80, 2011). The President's
2015 Budget includes a provision to improve collection of
pension information from states and localities to better
enforce the existing Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and
Government Pension Offset (GPO) policies.
Administration Progress in Selected Areas Identified in GAO's 2014
Recommendations
GAO's 2014 report includes a new set of recommendations not covered
in previous GAO reports. The Administration is reviewing GAO's 2014
recommendations, but a preliminary review indicates that the
Administration is already taking action in many of the areas identified
by GAO. Ongoing action includes:
Army Workforce Planning (area 1, 2014). The Army continues
to work towards eliminating the Army Workload and Performance
System (AWPS) and replacing it with the Logistics Modernization
Program (LMP) to address the duplication that exists between
these systems.
Contracting for Defense Health Care Professionals (area 2,
2014). The Department of Defense (DOD) continues to explore
opportunities for improved efficiency in contracting for
Defense Health Care professionals. In October 2013, DOD stood
up the Defense Health Agency (DHA), which is working on
consolidating ten Shared Services, including contracting, among
the three Services' Medical Departments, in order to improve
effectiveness and efficiency within the Military Health System
by achieving greater standardization and economies of scale
across the system. The DHA Division on Contracting Shared
Services has leveraged GAO's recommendations and is actively
pursuing improved contracting strategies for health care
professionals and other services and commodities.
Defense Satellite Control Operations (area 3, 2014). DOD
concurs with GAO that its satellite control operations should
become more interoperable, and is working toward fulfilling the
requirements in the FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act.
DOD is undertaking an extensive effort to develop a new
satellite control operations architecture and concept of
operations, which will leverage existing modernization plans
and commercial best practices. The goal is to improve future
satellite control operations and cyber protection while
reducing life cycle cost and maintaining the uninterrupted
operation of more than 170 satellites.
Defense Studies and Analysis Research (area 4, 2014).
Defense Studies and Analysis Research are currently conducted
throughout the Department of Defense and each of the military
services. While specific offices are designated to formally
coordinate research requests within each service and the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, there is not always a requirement
to coordinate among entities. Regardless of where the research
and analysis is approved, once it is being conducted, ongoing
and completed reports and studies are shared throughout the
defense community through the Defense Technical Information
Center (DTIC), online at www.dtic.mil. In some specific areas,
such as the Science and Technology community, executive
committees and communities of interest facilitate coordination
in areas of overlapping interest to avoid duplication and
combine efforts and resources to meet a common goal.
POW/MIA Mission (area 5, 2014). In a July 2013 report, GAO
found that the missing persons accounting community is at risk
of performing overlapping and duplicative efforts due to a lack
of clarity in its members' roles and responsibilities and a
fragmented organizational structure. In an effort to address
this issue, DOD announced in March 2014 that it will combine
the Joint POW-MIA Accounting Command and the Defense POW-MIA
Office into a single organization. The new organization will
streamline POW-MIA personnel recovery operations. DOD will also
create a single centralized case management database of missing
service member information. This new system will aid in
recovery and provide family members with a single point of
contact for information on missing persons.
Minority AIDS Initiative (area 7, 2014). In implementing the
National HIV/AIDS Strategy, HHS established a working group in
2011. The working group established a set of common core HIV
indicators across HHS-funded programs and developed
corresponding implementation guidance. The group continues to
work on streamlining data collection and reducing HIV grantee
reporting burden by more than \1/3\.
Disability and Unemployment Benefits (area 8, 2014). The
President's 2015 Budget proposes to prevent individuals from
collecting full unemployment and disability insurance benefits
for the same period of time. This will provide savings of about
$3 billion over 10 years.
Federal Employees Compensation and Unemployment (area 9,
2014). The Administration's FECA reforms, which the 2015 Budget
re-proposes, would authorize DOL to cross-match FECA records
with Social Security wage records to reduce improper payments.
Combatant Command Headquarters Costs (area 12, 2014). GAO's
2014 Annual Report on duplication assesses that DOD does not
adequately evaluate staffing requirements and operating costs
for the six geographic combatant commands (COCOMs). Since a
previous GAO report in May 2013 recommended a comprehensive
review of the size and structure of the COCOM headquarters, DOD
has ordered a phased 20 percent reduction to all service and
COCOM headquarters, in addition to other management reductions,
which together will save $5.3 billion through FY 2019 as
described in the President's Budget for FY 2015. DOD will also
strive to reduce COCOM headquarters' civilian staffing by 20
percent over the same period. In a related action, GAO
recommends that DOD assess whether U.S. Africa Command should
move its headquarters from Germany to the United States. Such a
move requires more extensive analysis of the fiscal and
operational impacts.
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
(area 13, 2014). ATVM was established by Congress in 2007 to
support the production of fuel-efficient, advanced technology
vehicles and components in the United States. The program has
since supported more than a dozen new or retooled auto
manufacturing plants across the country creating or saving over
35,000 jobs. While the program has faced challenges in
attracting new applicants over the past few years, the
Administration is actively working to reinvigorate the program
through outreach and improvements to the application process.
Real Estate Owned Properties (area 18, 2014). To continue
making progress in maximizing the value of homes taken into
possession through loan defaults, FHA is expanding use of rapid
sales techniques such as pre-foreclosure sales and using
enhanced sources of market price information such as automated
valuation models. FHA increased its share of pre-foreclosure
sales from 6.6 percent in 2008 to 14.4 percent in 2013.
Social Security Disability Insurance & Earnings Data (area
22, 2014). SSA continues to assess the feasibility of using
additional data sources to identify beneficiary earnings and
will add sources where doing so are cost-effective and
permitted by law. In addition, SSA is analyzing the specific
cases identified by GAO as potentially having been overpaid due
to work above the substantial gainful activity level in the
waiting period, properly developing evidence of earnings, and
making work activity determinations according to the agency's
policies.
Veterans' and Survivors' Benefits (area 23, 2014). The
Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) is currently taking action
to address GAO's 2014 report recommendation aimed at creating
greater asset look-back review for veterans' and survivors'
benefits. Under current regulations, veterans can transfer or
gift assets prior to applying for pension benefits without
penalty, and VA does not inquire about these transfers. VA has
conducted a comprehensive rewrite of its regulations to allow
more questions about asset transfers during the 3 years prior
to applying for benefits. Once these rewrites are complete, VA
will begin using the additional data to conduct look-back
reviews to reduce fraud and ensure beneficiaries receive the
correct benefits.
Better Data to Mitigate Foreclosures (area 25, 2014). While
FHA continues to evaluate its loss mitigation programs, it made
changes to help borrowers at the very early stages of
delinquency when interventions can prevent serious delinquency,
including use of borrower characteristics to choose the
appropriate form of assistance. FHA increased the number of
households assisted with early intervention by 31 percent
between 2010 and 2013 and reduced 6 month re-default rates from
17 percent in 2011 to eight percent in 2013 among those who
were helped by the agency's loss mitigation programs.
Housing Choice Vouchers Rent Reform (area 26, 2014). The
Administration continues to support HUD in its evaluation of
public housing agencies participating in the Moving To Work
(MTW) program that are undergoing rent reform efforts (i.e.,
changes in the way and amount families contribute towards rent)
to determine which, if any, rent reform options can and should
be expanded. Lessons learned from these efforts, however, are
not only limited to the Housing Choice Voucher program but
would apply to all HUD rental assistance programs, including
Project Based Rental Assistance and Public Housing. In
addition, as a part of the FY 2015 Budget, the Administration
supports additional funding for the rent reform demonstration
and plans to submit legislation to expand the MTW program to
high performing public housing agencies to further test
innovative strategies such as rent reform, combined with
rigorous evaluation requirements.
Submitted Question
Response from Angela K. Rachidi, Ph.D., Research Fellow in Poverty
Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Question Submitted by Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Question. As I travel through my district and this issue comes up,
I cannot tell you how many people believe that these programs are
misusing funds. When it comes to research and oversight, what do we
know about the effectiveness of these programs and the way they are
administered? Does this fragmented system of 18 different programs,
administered by three Federal departments, work in a way that is
effective and financially responsible? If you were to analyze the
individual programs, would taxpayers find these funds to be
appropriately administered?
Answer. With a few exceptions, the evidence suggests that the large
programs (e.g., SNAP, National School Lunch, WIC) are administered
fairly effectively with some exceptions. For example, the error rate
for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is
approximately 3.2%, which is quite good considering the complexity of
the program. In terms of the National School Lunch Program, there is
some evidence that categorical eligibility has some problems. A recent
GAO report found some errors in how categorical eligibility was
determined. In an unrepresentative sample of 25 approved applications
for the school meals program, six indicated categorical eligibility but
the GAO found that two were not eligible at all and one was not
eligible for free lunch, but possibly reduced lunch.\1\ There is always
room for improvement, but in general these programs are considered
fairly well administered and there does not seem to be a large scale
problem concerning misuse of funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670078.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the evidence suggests that the programs that have been
studied (again, the large programs such as SNAP, School Lunch, and WIC)
do have positive benefits for recipients. However, the small programs
have not been evaluated to the same extent so it is unclear whether
they have the same positive benefits as the larger programs, although
one can assume that they likely do. Although the evidence is positive
in terms of recipient outcomes, it does not address the question of
whether these programs could be administered in a better, more
coordinated way.
I am not aware of any evaluations assessing the effectiveness of
how these programs are administered; meaning whether the decentralized
manner in which they are operated is effective or not. But in my
experience working for the City of New York, a fragmented system (at
the local level that starts with the Federal level) does create
inefficiencies and fails to capitalize on technology that could reduce
errors and improve efficiency. In this sense, if I were to evaluate
each program individually I might conclude that they are appropriately
administered, but taken together I would find that a lack of
coordination causes some problems. Efforts to improve coordination,
especially through oversight and the use of technology are recommended.
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: THE MEANS TO CLIMBING THE
ECONOMIC LADDER)
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael
Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Conaway, Neugebauer,
Lucas, Thompson, Austin Scott of Georgia, Benishek, LaMalfa,
Davis, Yoho, Walorski, Allen, Bost, Abraham, Moolenaar,
Newhouse, Peterson, David Scott of Georgia, Walz, Fudge,
McGovern, Vela, Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Nolan, Bustos,
Kirkpatrick, Aguilar, Plaskett, Graham, and Ashford.
Staff present: Anne DeCesaro, Carly Reedholm, Haley Graves,
Jackie Barber, Mary Nowak, Mollie Wilken, Scott C. Graves,
Faisal Siddiqui, John Konya, Evan Jurkovich, Lisa Shelton, Liz
Friedlander, Mike Stranz, and Nicole Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
The Chairman. Good morning, I now call the meeting to
order. Please join me in a prayer. Dear Holy Father, we thank
you, Lord, for the multitude of blessings you bestowed upon us.
Thank you for the privilege, Lord, of leading the country on
the House Agriculture Committee. Be with us this morning as we
deliberate these important issues. Help us understand the
hearts of the witnesses, and the impact they have on our
decision-making. Bless us now at the hour of service. We ask
this in Jesus' name, amen.
I welcome our witnesses to today's hearing. I thank them
for taking the time to share their perspectives as we explore
the means of helping families climb the economic ladder. This
hearing, like those before, builds on the Committee's top to
bottom review of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Throughout this process we have had an eye toward strengthening
SNAP so that it doesn't become a trap, but rather a tool to
help individuals move up the economic ladder. Today we will
hear a variety of ways of actually doing that.
As we have learned throughout this hearing series, SNAP
does not operate in a vacuum. It should not be expected to
carry the entire load and provide all solutions for the most
vulnerable. That being said, it does serve as an important role
in the lives of nearly 46 million Americans. In order to better
understand and serve SNAP recipients, it is important to have a
realistic view of what it takes for many Americans to get back
on their feet and enter, re-enter, and remain in the workforce.
Steady employment makes it possible to climb the economic
ladder and rise out of poverty.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 2.7 percent of
full time workers are poor, as defined by the Federal poverty
level, compared with 32.3 percent of adults who do not work.
Even part time work makes a significant difference. Only 17.5
percent of part time workers are poor. That is why SNAP has
long had an employment and training component. However, in an
effort to promote administrative efficiency and decrease cost,
often at the expense of benefit costs, the program overall has
moved away from engaging recipients. What we will hear today is
that the opposite should be happening. A greater level of
engagement is needed between SNAP and recipients.
Encouraging work is good for both recipients and taxpayers.
Increasing work among SNAP recipients increases economic
mobility, leads to greater financial stability, and improves
outcomes for children. There is also great dignity that comes
from being able to provide financially for one's own family.
Prior testimony provided before this Committee has
consistently shown recipients do want to work, and research by
USDA shows that many adults do. We have heard about this during
our last full Committee hearing from Keleigh Green-Patton, a
former SNAP recipient. In her testimony, she shared her story
of intermittent times in her life when she received SNAP. One
of those times she was an adult, unemployed, with two small
children to feed. As she made her way back into the workforce,
she described SNAP to be like a trampoline helping her to get
back into the workforce.
Yet, there are still large numbers of households, many with
children, that do not report earned income, which is income
that a person received for doing work. According to the latest
USDA SNAP characteristics report, only 31 percent of total SNAP
households reported earned income. For households without
children, the disabled or elderly, it drops to only one in five
households having earned income. SNAP, along with other
programs should be temporary support for individuals as they
improve their financial situation. We want more Keleighs and
more trampolines.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as we
seek to better understand how to help individuals enter, re-
enter, and remain in the workforce and experience the dignity
of work.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
Congress from Texas
I want to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing and thank them
for taking the time to share their perspectives as we explore the means
to helping families climb the economic ladder. This hearing, like those
before, builds upon the Committee's top-to-bottom review of the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Throughout this
process, we have had an eye towards strengthening SNAP so that it
doesn't become a trap but rather a tool to help individuals move up the
economic ladder. Today we'll hear a variety of ways to actually do
that.
As we have learned throughout this hearing series, SNAP does not
operate in a vacuum. It should not be expected to carry the entire load
and provide all solutions for the most vulnerable. That being said, it
does serve an important role in the lives of nearly 46 million
Americans.
In order to better understand and serve SNAP recipients, it is
important to have a realistic view of what it takes for many Americans
to get back on their feet and remain in the workforce. Steady
employment makes it possible to climb the economic ladder and rise out
of poverty. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 2.7 percent of
full-time workers are poor, as defined by the Federal Poverty Level,
compared with 32.3 percent of adults who do not work. Even part-time
work makes a significant difference; only 17.5 percent of part-time
workers are poor.
That's why SNAP has long had an employment and training component.
However, in an effort to promote administrative efficiency and decrease
costs--often at the expense of benefit costs--the program overall has
moved away from engaging recipients. What we'll hear today is that the
opposite should be happening--a greater level of engagement is needed
between SNAP and recipients.
Encouraging work is good for both recipients and taxpayers.
Increasing work among SNAP recipients increases economic mobility,
leads to greater financial stability, and improves outcomes for
children. There is also great dignity that comes from being able to
provide financially for one's own family.
Prior testimony provided before this Committee has consistently
shown recipients do want to work, and research by USDA shows that many
adults do. We heard about this during our last full Committee hearing
from Keleigh Green-Patton, a former SNAP recipient. In her testimony
she shared her story of intermittent times in her life when she
received SNAP. One of those times was when she was an adult and
unemployed, with two small mouths to feed. As she made her way back
into the workforce, she described SNAP to be ``like a trampoline'' in
helping her to back in the workforce.
However, there are still large numbers of households--many with
children--that do not report earned income, which is income that a
person receives for doing work. According to the latest USDA SNAP
Characteristics Report, only 31% of total SNAP households reported
earned income. For households without children, the disabled or the
elderly, it drops to only one out of five households having reported
earned income.
SNAP, along with other programs and approaches, should be temporary
support as individuals improve their financial situation. We want more
Keleighs and more trampolines. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today as we seek to better understand how to help individuals
enter, re-enter, and remain in the workforce, and experience the
dignity of work.
The Chairman. And with that I will yield to the Ranking
Member for any comments that he might have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, and I want to thank the witnesses
for taking their time to be with us today, and I am going to
yield my time to our Ranking Member of the Nutrition
Subcommittee, Mr. McGovern.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. McGovern. I thank the Ranking Member for yielding.
There are lots of wrongs in the world for us to do endless
hearings on, but it should be clear to everybody on this
Committee who has sat through now--this is the fifth hearing on
SNAP--that SNAP is something that is working. Time and time
again we have heard from witnesses, both Democratic and
Republican witnesses, that SNAP is a good program. It is
efficient, and it is effective. And we were told by charities
and nonprofits that they cannot feed the hungry on their own,
they need a strong Federal partner. They urge us not to cut
SNAP, not to block grant SNAP. In fact, they urged us to
strengthen the program by making it easier for eligible people
to enroll and re-enroll in the program.
And let us be clear, while today's hearing is entitled,
Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: The Means to Climbing the
Economic Ladder, SNAP is a food program. It is not a jobs
program, it is not a housing program, it is a food program.
Two-thirds of SNAP recipients are kids, seniors, or the
disabled, most of whom are not expected to work, unless someone
here wants to repeal the child labor laws or send grandma back
to work. Of those who can work, the majority do work. But here
is the thing that should really trouble all of my colleagues,
there are those who work full time in this country and earn so
little that they still qualify for SNAP. And no matter how much
you want to tweak, change, or supposedly want to reform SNAP,
the only way to solve that problem is by increasing wages. And
while you are at it, you should adequately fund job training
programs so that there are enough slots for people who need
them.
I have no idea where these hearings are leading, but I have
a sinking feeling in my stomach that they are not leading to a
place that is good for millions of struggling Americans. We
need better coordination amongst Federal agencies. We need to
overcome silo mentalities, and we need a more comprehensive
approach to ending poverty. But, quite frankly, that requires a
discussion beyond the Agriculture Committee. In the past couple
years this Congress has cut SNAP, has demagogued poor people,
has tried to block grant SNAP, and has increased hunger in
America. I think enough damage has been done. And with that, I
yield back my time.
The Chairman. All right. The chair requests that Members
submit their opening statements for the record so the witnesses
may begin their testimony and ensure that there is ample time
for questions. I would like to welcome our witnesses to the
table today. We will have Mr. Patrick Raglow, Executive
Director, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Mr. Leon Samuels, Executive
Director of STRIVE DC here in Washington, D.C., Ms. Elisabeth
Babcock, MCRP, Ph.D. President and CEO of Crittenton Women's
Union, Boston, MA, and Mr. Grant Collins, Senior Vice
President, Workforce Development, Federal Recap Rehabilitation
Services, New York City.
Mr. Raglow, your 5 minutes will begin when you are ready.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. RAGLOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CATHOLIC
CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
Mr. Raglow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Conaway,
Ranking Member Peterson, and distinguished Members of the House
Committee on Agriculture, I am Patrick Raglow, Executive
Director of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma
City, a 501(c)(3) human services organization rooted in our
Roman Catholic faith. Our mission is to give help and hope to
all through the Catholic tradition of service. In 2014, my
agency served more than 16,000 Oklahomans across 46 counties of
central and western Oklahoma through 16 different social
service programs. Last year 76 percent of those served earned
less than $15,000 per year.
You are here to review the effectiveness and impact of the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. I applaud your
effort to gain clarity on its purpose, impact, and
effectiveness, and your willingness to challenge assumptions
behind the program to improve its contribution to the health of
our people and our communities. I am not here as an expert on
SNAP policy or implementation. But having seen the testimony of
the four previous hearings, I am confident and pleased you have
heard from such experts, and I won't try to rephrase their
points. I would just say, to start, that as we examine ways to
improve this program, if we are to err, we should err on the
side of the poor.
With that in mind, I would like to begin my recommendations
for principles to guide your work, include examples which
indicate how these principles are already working, and close
with some thoughts on how to strengthen the collaboration
between government and the nonprofit sector to enable us to
more effectively and comprehensively address the needs of those
in poverty. I recommend less programmatic mandates from above,
greater reliance on local innovation, and incentives to use
whatever resources are available to foster relationships,
relationships that connect individuals and communities, each to
contribute to the well-being of the other.
I believe one of the best ways SNAP can assist the path to
self-sufficiency is by linking SNAP, when appropriate, to
comprehensive case management. Case management as employed by
Catholic Charities and similar agencies, seeks to engage those
we serve in a relationship to best address the conditions which
bring the client to us, and not merely transfer resources to
cover immediate needs. We accompany people on their journey to
self-sufficiency, drawing from each client's own resources,
talents, aspirations, and objectives. When Catholic Charities
and a client partner go through case management, we engage the
gifts that they bring, serving in ways that elevate client
ownership of their situation and the path forward.
Case management can powerfully improve the lives of those
we serve, and this should inform your examination of the
broader social safety net programs in which SNAP plays a role.
I have learned that in every case informational poverty
contributes to economic poverty. Case management identifies
barriers, provides tools and skills, and connects clients with
available resources, of which they are too often unaware.
Effectively and appropriately incorporating case management
support in the safety net program such as SNAP would ensure
clients receive not just the assistance they need for a day,
but information and tools needed to build a pathway out of
poverty.
Case management is a key component of our work in Oklahoma,
including long term recovery assistance after natural
disasters, which we experience all too often, our Sanctuary
Women's Development Centers and crisis pregnancy services,
migration and refugee programs, and more. The particulars and
depth of case management vary in each of these programs, and
indeed by each client. But when clients accept the partnership
of case management, lives change for the better. As one
example, we had 4,000 households that suffered significant to
total destruction in the storms of May 2013 in Oklahoma. Those
affected weren't usually those asking for help, they are
usually the ones giving it. But of the 4,000 households, more
than 3,500 have transitioned to their post-recovery new normal
because case management connected them with processes and
resources that they don't ordinarily deal with in their daily
lives.
So clearly case management can help those in need take
effective action toward self-sufficiency and a better life. I
will make one distinction. I strongly believe SNAP, and other
assistance programs, should leverage case management when
appropriate, but I am not recommending case management as a
requirement in all cases. We should not make a case management
mandate into an obstacle to service, and therefore an obstacle
to relationships of which--is at the core of case management.
As a faith-based organization largely reliant on parish and
local community support, we are going to be present to our
brothers and sisters whether they are in case management or
not, but case management is potentially life changing, and once
a client is ready, so is Catholic Charities, and great things
happen.
Thank you for demonstrating through this process that we
can be civil, productive, and faithful to our principles and
constituents while undertaking a deep look at a multi-faceted
program touching the lives of more than 46 million Americans.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raglow follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick J. Raglow, Executive Director, Catholic
Charities of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City, OK
Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson and Members of the House
Committee on Agriculture,
I am Patrick Raglow, Executive Director of Catholic Charities of
the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, a 501(c)(3) human services
organization rooted in our Roman Catholic faith. Our mission is to give
help and hope to all through the Catholic Tradition of Service.
In 2014, my agency served more than 16,000 Oklahomans across 46
counties of Central and Western Oklahoma through 16 different social
service programs. Last year, 76 percent of those served earned less
than $15,000 per year. I'll say this again: more than 12,000 of those
we served last year earned less than $15,000 per year. That's a
heartbreaking number which I wish did not exist, but since it does, I
am glad that Catholic Charities is with them in their need. On behalf
of those we are privileged to serve and Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of
the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, I want to thank you
for granting me this opportunity to visit with you today.
You are here to review the effectiveness and impact of the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). I applaud your effort
to gain clarity on its purpose, impact and effectiveness, and your
willingness to challenge assumptions behind the program to improve its
contribution to the health of our people and our communities. Any
program of this size ought to be reviewed, have its assumptions
challenged, to understand whether its impact aligns with its intent,
whether its costs are in line with its gains, and whether its
consequences, intended and unintended, accrue to the common and
individual good. I am not here as an expert on SNAP policy or
implementation, but having seen the testimony of the four previous
hearings, I am confident and pleased you have heard from such experts,
and I won't try rephrase their points. I would just say to start that
as we examine ways to improve this program, if we are to err, we should
err on the side of the poor.
With that in mind, I would like to begin with my recommendations
for principles to guide your work, include examples which indicate how
these principles are already working, and close with some thoughts on
how to strengthen the partnership between government and the nonprofit
sector to enable us to more effectively and comprehensively address the
needs of those in poverty. I recommend less programmatic mandates from
above, greater reliance on local innovation and incentives to use
whatever resources are available to foster relationships, connecting
these individuals and communities to contribute to the well-being of
the other.
Principles of Case Management
I believe that one of the ways the SNAP can most firmly help as an
assist to self-sufficiency is by linking SNAP when appropriate to the
concept of comprehensive case management. Case management as employed
by Catholic Charities and similar agencies seeks to engage those it
serves in a relationship to best address the conditions which brought
the client to us, and not merely transfer resources to cover immediate
needs. We accompany people on their journey to self-sufficiency,
drawing from the client's own resources and talents, aspirations and
objectives. When Catholic Charities and a client partner through case
management, we engage also the gifts of their humanity, seeking to
serve in ways that elevate client ownership of their situation and its
path forward. Case management is not about adding to their circle of
friends, nor is it about proselytizing. Catholic Charities agencies
serve others not because they are Catholic but because we are; clients
need not attend services to receive services. Catholic Charities
agencies recognize the dignity of all clients.
I have seen the powerful impact case management can have on
improving the lives of those we serve in hopes that this may inform
your conversations about the broader social safety net system in which
SNAP plays a role. I have learned that in every case, informational
poverty is a contributor to economic poverty. Case management
identifies barriers, provides tools and skills, and connects the client
with available resources that they often aren't aware of. By
incorporating case management support into safety-net programs such as
SNAP, we could ensure that clients are not just receiving the
assistance they need for a day, but the information they need to build
a pathway out of poverty.
I've been in an agency with 270 employees and a $20 million budget,
and my current role with 75 employees and a $5 million budget, and
through these experiences, intensive case management shines through as
a powerful method of improving outcomes for those in need in a variety
of communities, programs, and situations. This is born out across the
more than 160 agencies in the Catholic Charities USA network, each
working in their own community with their own individualized approach,
but which provide evidence that intensive case management works!
Case management is a key component of many of our programs in
Oklahoma City, including:
Long-term recovery assistance after natural disasters (which
are unfortunately common in Oklahoma),
Our Family Help, Organize, Prioritize, Empower (H.O.P.E.)
program,
Our Sanctuary Women's Development Centers and Crisis
Pregnancy Services,
Transitional Housing programs and support to sponsored
family housing,
``Housing First'' programs aimed at addressing the
chronically homeless,
Welfare-to-Work programs,
Migration and Refugee Programs, and more.
The particulars and depth of case management vary in each of these
programs, and indeed, by each client. But when clients accept the
partnership of case management, lives change for the better.
Case Management Helps Change Lives
As just one example, Oklahoma had more than 4,000 households that
suffered significant to total destruction in the aftermath of the
series of tornadoes and storms that ravaged central Oklahoma in May
2013. Many of those affected were hardworking, competent, independent
individuals who were dealt a severe blow. These folks aren't usually
the ones asking for help, they're giving it. However, most people even
in Oklahoma don't experience firsthand a disaster of this magnitude,
and therefore have never acquired the knowledge of how to successfully
navigate the myriad government and nonprofit resources available to
help them rebuild. It's an intimidating, frustrating, and lengthy
process: FEMA certifications, Small Business Administration loan
eligibility, Red Cross Shelters, debris removal options, working with
insurance adjustors, understanding city clean-up requirements and
complying with newly implemented building codes. As if that wasn't
difficult enough, regardless of their competence, each of them was
trauma-affected--their thinking was affected to a greater or lesser
degree just from their experience.
Navigating the path to full recovery is hard, but case managers
(not the same as traditional case workers) can help each of them
successfully find their way. Of the 4,000 households mentioned above,
more than 3,500 have transitioned to their post-recovery new normal,
availing themselves of coordinated case management made available
through the Oklahoma Disaster Recovery Project, a collaboration of the
local American Red Cross, Salvation Army, United Methodist Church of
Oklahoma, Church of the Harvest, Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and
Catholic Charities. Case managers facilitated survivor access to
Federal, state and local resources for which they were eligible, as
well as non-government resources whether from corporations, foundations
or individual. These resources could be manpower, material, or money.
Each client was assisted based on individual circumstances, so the
resources accessed differed accordingly. We will continue to work with
the remaining survivors until all who seek assistance have recovered.
Another example comes from shortly after the Great Recession, when
I was associated with a food pantry program that served 125 clients a
day, Monday through Friday, in a very hard-hit community. It was a
fabulous program in many respects: clients were treated well and with
dignity, they could select their preferred protein, vegetable, grain,
dairy, and even donated desserts, all from a clean, store-like
environment. They were allowed to select food their family would
actually eat, not simply accept whatever happened to be in the bag that
week. It was, in many respects, an excellent and well-run program that
ensured those at risk of going hungry could reliably access food. Yet I
noticed that 2\1/2\ later, too many of our clients were still returning
monthly to participate in accessing our food pantry. We had done some
things incredibly well, but we at Catholic Charities had, in
retrospect, failed to address the conditions that had brought that
family to us, and help them to succeed such that our food pantry
supplies were no longer needed.
At the other end, I witnessed the success of that particular
agency's welfare-to-work program, which coupled the resources available
through multiple sources with intensive case management. Staff
empowered clients through efforts including budgeting, skill and
resource development, child care, and housing support, all time-limited
and structured so as to have the client increasingly responsible for
their own needs, and ultimately transitioning to self-sufficiency. The
program boasted an 86% success rate--incredible.
On another front, Migration and Refugee Service programs run
through the Department of Health and Human Services are also incredibly
effective, through very intensive case management. Refugees come to
American cities and towns from deplorable conditions and persecution
abroad. Through case managed services including housing, language
training, cultural awareness, job skill development, and more, the
majority of these individuals are successfully transitioned to a new
environment in a new country, not using their native tongue and are
achieving a very high rate of success self-sufficiency within a year.
It is amazing to witness.
But let me also emphasize that not all assistance programs should
have a case management component. If you want to reach all persons, you
have to lower barriers to entry. You have to meet people where they
are, and they may not be willing, or ready, or able to undertake such a
journey. For instance, at our Sanctuary Women's Development Center,
which serves women and women with children facing homelessness, we
offer a safe space, access to showers, laundry, food, fellowship and
more. Most of our women have a wary eye on our operation, but after
visiting the first time, they are known by name. Each subsequent visit
they are greeted by name and with a smile. At our Day Center, we offer
case management. Each woman is made aware of our services, but it is
only after having built trust and confidence that we care, that they'll
be safe, that we can be trusted, will they enter into case management.
In this setup, food assistance, laundry and shower facilities, and bus
passes are the bridges to the relationship I mentioned above. Of
approximately 600 women and women with children that visit us monthly,
some 150-200 are in case management at any given time. From these,
using our own resources and those of the community around us, including
those resources made available through government programs such as VA-
supported Housing or Section 8 vouchers or job training, we assist on
average nine women a month into permanent housing, which we don't count
successful until they remain in that housing for 6 months or longer.
As you can tell, I believe strongly in the power of case management
to help those in need create a solid path to a better life. At the same
time, while assistance programs should have a connection to case
management, a case management requirement should not by itself be a
barrier to services. As a faith-based organization largely reliant on
our faith community with very limited government resources, we are
going to be present to our brothers and sisters whether they are in
case management or not. But the opportunity for case management is
potentially life changing, and once a client is ready, so is Catholic
Charities, and great things happen.
Strengthening Our Ability to Respond to Those in Need
I hope I have shown the positive, power of intensive case
management, and also, the critical role the Federal Government plays
and must play in meeting needs of those on the margins of our society.
While dollars are not the only solution, they are nonetheless necessary
for that solution. Individuals rarely have a relationship with the
Federal Government--but they do have relationships with their
neighbors, with church families, school groups and organizations, and
the like. Local agencies do create and sustain working relationships
with those they serve; leveraging government resources to accomplish
what resources alone cannot and could not ever build. I submit that
pairing the resources with relationship is essential to improving
lives, and therefore to meeting the intent of the allocation in the
first place.
Case management works because it is not merely a transfer of
resources, nor the application of a formula, but a working
relationship. Case management seeks to use all available resources as a
means to address immediate unmet needs, while also using those
resources as a bridge to relationship, for it is in relationship that
we connect the individual to society and society to the individual.
Relationship through case management helps nonprofit agencies stretch
scarce Federal dollars and other resources by connecting explicitly
with the client, drawing on his or her insight and talent, and
challenging the client to employ his or her own gifts on a path to
self-sufficiency with dignity. It connects individuals with agencies,
programs, examples and tools to first chart and then follow a path to
self-sufficiency.
Case Management is also about effective decision making. Our faith
teaches not only about the rights accorded persons due to their
dignity, but also about their responsibility to put the talent they
have been given to good use. Effective case managers help clients make
better decisions based on better information. Precisely because we
believe the clients can and should make their own decisions, we also
respect them enough to work through the outcome of those decisions.
This does not mean there won't be setbacks, but it does mean continued
progress toward goals is expected. In this way, case management assures
good stewardship for resources because of the relationship component.
Dissociated assistance is much more likely to be abused; where there is
no relationship to the resources, there is little harm perceived for
their misuse. Case management increases accountability and
responsibility by all parties.
Properly executed, case management prevents duplication of service
and coordinates effective service approaches from multiple agencies to
strengthen each client's progress toward self-sufficiency. At its best,
case management is client-centered, client-empowering, and ultimately,
client-releasing. Catholic Charities agencies do this in full
collaboration with other community providers such as the Salvation
Army, Regional Food Bank, City Rescue Mission, and many others. There
is plenty of need present in our communities; service providers need
not compete with one another, and grants and resources should seek to
foster collaboration rather than competition for funds.
By incorporating case management support into SNAP and other
safety-net programs, we can ensure that these programs are enabling a
journey out of poverty rather than merely sustaining people living in
material need. Of course, many users of SNAP may not necessarily need
case management. Many of these, as has been noted by other witnesses
before this Committee, are the working poor. They are often two-income
households, working right and playing right, but simply earning too
little to make ends meet. Additionally, children, seniors, and the
disabled often rely on the assistance their families receive from SNAP
Obviously, food insecurity is a problem that we have a moral obligation
to address--no one wants families in need to go hungry. SNAP helps them
access healthy and affordable food through programs, and it's
impossible to build a pathway out of poverty if you're worried about
where your next meal will come from. In all cases, the work of case
management and getting people out of poverty for good should be
supplemented and supported by traditional safety-net programs like
SNAP; they should not be pitted against each other.
I appreciate the work of Members on both sides of the aisle for
working together to gain an improved common understanding of the
program, showing respect for differing view-points and leading to
future decisions made on merit, balancing competing interests for the
common good. Thank you for demonstrating through this process that we
can be civil, productive, and faithful to our principles and
constituents while undertaking a deep look at a multi-faceted program
that touches the lives of more than 40 million Americans.
Respectfully,
Patrick J. Raglow,
Executive Director,
Catholic Charities of Oklahoma City.
STATEMENT OF LEON A. SAMUELS, Jr., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STRIVE
DC, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Samuels. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Peterson, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss STRIVE DC's unique Attitudinal Job Readiness Program,
and how we help the District's poorest residents. My name is
Leon Alan Samuels, Junior, and I am the Executive Director of
STRIVE DC, a workforce development agency in Washington, D.C.
established in 1999 to combat the high unemployment rate in the
District's poorest neighborhoods. Our participants are
chronically unemployed, the formerly incarcerated, recovering
addicts, public assistant recipients, and the working poor. I
am here today to describe how STRIVE DC's program goes beyond
workforce preparation and workforce engagement, and aims to
change people's lives for the better through workforce
advancement.
Last year, in 2014, at STRIVE DC, 63 percent of our clients
were SNAP recipients when they started the program, and
eventually, after obtaining jobs, 83 percent were able to
transition out of a need of the SNAP program. STRIVE DC is a
part of a national program, STRIVE International, that provides
full range of job training, career development, supporter
services to the hardest to employ in cities throughout the
United States. STRIVE centers are located in 20 states,
including Georgia, New York, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, North
Carolina, Illinois, and California. STRIVE DC's program stands
out because of our comprehensive case management services, 2
years of support and follow-up. Our training is rooted in the
belief that every individual has the power to change, but such
an individual needs the tools and supports to do so.
To address the needs of our clients, and provide pathways
to self-sufficiency and living wage employment, STRIVE DC is
broken down into three different stages. The first stage is
workforce preparation. In workforce preparation, there are two
components. The first component is our career gear component,
where clients are given professional clothing in order to go on
job interviews.
The second component is our CORE attitudinal 3 week job
readiness training program, in which participants--we take a no
nonsense approach to preparing our clients for the rigors of
the workplace, helping individuals develop the attitudes and
workplace behaviors they need to stay employed. This program
mimics the workplace, and forces punctuality, appropriate
dress, acceptance of authority, teaches anger management,
interpersonal skills, and teamwork.
The second component is workforce engagement. Under
workforce engagement, STRIVE DC's Careers Services Department
offers career planning and job development services to each
participant. The STRIVE DC philosophy is to encourage
participants to plan for careers, because in our experience,
participants who develop a career mindset begin to make long
term decisions.
The third component of that is workforce advancement. Under
workforce advancement, we have an occupational skills training
program, in which--after participants complete the core
training, they begin a hard skills training program, leading to
occupational skills certifications.
The most important component of our program is our case
management. One of the essential services that STRIVE DC
provides is wrap around case management to support our clients
during and after the program. STRIVE DC's supportive services
team meets with clients upon intake, conducting an intensive
survey of each client's background and life issues. Throughout
the program case managers are focused on identifying and
overcoming the challenges and the impact of a participant's
ability to complete training, and ultimately succeed in work.
In conclusion, STRIVE DC program provides practical
guidance in applying for a job, staying employed in the
professional world. At the same time, it is intense,
confrontational, and sometimes emotional. But more than
anything else, it builds the participants' confidence in their
own natural ability and self-worth. Yet it is important to
understand that many participants have difficult home
situations. While training addresses their attitudes and helps
them look within themselves to figure out what they need to
succeed, it is not just the training that allows for the
success of the program. It is essential case by case management
and referrals.
I once was unemployed. I once was a food stamp recipient. I
once came through the STRIVE program, and after going through
the STRIVE program, I worked a job for 6 months. I was on food
stamps for approximately 36 days. With that, I came back to
STRIVE and served as a job developer. I was promoted to a
Deputy Director, and now I sit before you as the Executive
Director of STRIVE DC. Thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Samuels follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leon A. Samuels, Jr., Executive Director, STRIVE
DC, Washington, D.C.
Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and
distinguished Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you to discuss how STRIVE DC's unique attitudinal job-
readiness program helps the District's poorest residents. Many of our
clients are SNAP recipients when they start the program and eventually
after obtaining jobs are able to transition out of the need for the
SNAP program.
Introduction
My name is Leon A. Samuels, Jr. and I am the Executive Director of
STRIVE DC, a workforce development nonprofit in Washington, D.C. I am
here on behalf of STRIVE DC to describe how the STRIVE program goes
beyond job preparation and job placement, and aims to change peoples'
lives for the better. STRIVE DC is part of a national program, STRIVE
International, that provides a full range of job training, career
development, and supportive services to the hardest-to-employ in cities
throughout the United States and in London and Israel. STRIVE centers
are located in 20 states including: Georgia, New York, Louisiana,
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Illinois, and California.
STRIVE DC was established in 1999 in the District of Columbia to
combat the high unemployment rate in the District's poorest
neighborhoods. Our participants are the chronically unemployed, the
formally incarcerated, at-risk young adults, recovering addicts, public
assistance recipients and the working poor. Nearly all of our
participants have income at or below the Federal poverty line (95%).
STRIVE DC's programs stand out because of our comprehensive case
management services and 2 years of follow up support. Our training is
rooted in the belief that every individual has the power to change but
such individuals need the tools and supports to do so. We focus on
empowerment and transformation for our clients--not just their job
readiness. We ensure that clients are not only ready to find a job, but
also ready to keep their job.
Description of Services
To address our clients' needs and provide pathways to self
sufficiency and living wage employment, STRIVE DC offers six essential
services: the CORE Attitudinal and Job Readiness Training, Occupational
Skills Training, Case Management, Job Placement and Career Development,
Retention/Follow-up and our Career Gear Clothing Closet.
1. CORE/Attitudinal Job Readiness Training: STRIVE DC's success
with high-risk populations is based on the transformative attitudinal
job readiness training provided by the CORE workshop. The modality is a
work-assimilated environment where participants are provided the tools
to begin viewing themselves as marketable adults and not as victims.
Our 3 week program takes a no-nonsense approach to preparing our
clients for the rigors of the workplace, helping individuals develop
the attitudes and workplace behaviors they need to stay employed.
The program creates an atmosphere that mimics the workplace,
enforcing punctuality, appropriate dress, acceptance of authority,
suitable comportment, responsibility for one's actions and work ethic.
We require participants to dress like they [are] going to work at a
corporation: jackets, ties and slacks for the men; neat hair, modest
business attire such as blouses and skirts, or pants suits, and low
heels for the women. CORE also teaches anger management, interpersonal
skills, proper verbal expression, and teamwork.
In class, participants learn how to write resumes and fill out
applications, take orders, accept criticism and function as team
members. They learn to use the computer, telephone and fax; and think
in terms of job advancement and long-term careers. They must come to
class 15 minutes early--as one would a job--and generally conduct
themselves as model employees. If they are late to class, they are
fired from our program--as employees may be fired from their jobs if
they are late. (Fired participants are encouraged to re-enroll for our
next scheduled training.) Participants learn by performing tasks in a
simulated workplace environment, interacting in-group sessions,
attending one-on-one counseling, role-playing, and mock interviewing.
CORE is a proven method of increasing the success rates of high-risk
individuals in subsequent skills training and employment.
2. Occupational Skills Training: Once participants complete CORE,
they may begin a skills training program leading to occupational skills
certifications.
3. Case Management: One of the essential services that STRIVE DC
provides is wrap-around case management to support our clients during
and after the program. STRIVE DC's Supportive Services team meets with
clients upon intake, conducting an extensive survey of each client's
background and life issues. Throughout the program, Case Managers focus
on identifying and overcoming the challenges that impact participants'
ability to complete training and ultimately succeed in the workplace.
These challenges include, among others, issues related to childcare,
health care, housing, the court system, education, transportation, and
emergency funds. Case Managers remain connected to each graduate during
the 2 year follow up period, offering referrals, help, and advice. Case
management is an essential and critical support system for people who
have few resources to resolve the life crises that can interfere with
their ability to work. STRIVE DC is virtually unique in the District in
providing 2 years of official support as well as lifetime access to job
placement, career counseling, and case management services to every
CORE graduate.
4. Career Development/Job Placement: STRIVE DC's Career Services
Department offers career planning and job development services to each
participant. The STRIVE DC philosophy is to encourage participants to
plan for a career because, in our experience, participants who develop
a career mindset begin to make long-term decisions--seeking more
responsibility at their job, pursuing opportunities for on-the-job
training and promotions, and furthering their education in night
school. Living wages and career growth set into motion a series of
positives that, when coupled with proper case management, keep a person
employed and help stabilize his/her family
5. Retention and Follow-Up: STRIVE DC's retention specialist's
calls working graduates every 30 days and non-working graduates every
90 days for 2 years. These communications establish the employment
status of each graduate and provide the opportunity to offer help and
guidance and to monitor progress against goals. STRIVE DC's intensive
involvement continues even after a client is employed. Employment
Specialists function in essence as an outside Human Resources
department for our graduates, helping to remediate employer issues,
securing supportive services for clients who are facing difficulties,
helping clients perceive job growth or promotion opportunities.
6. Career Gear Clothing Closet: The Career Gear Clothing Closet,
set up in our basement, has provided over 3,500 unemployed men and
women in the Washington, D.C. region with the professional clothing
needed to interview for a job. The Closet provides an important service
to the community and operates only with clothing donations. It offers
another important way for participants to overcome barriers to seeking
and finding jobs.
Additionally, STRIVE DC has also joined in collaboration with other
nonprofits to put District residents back to work through the Workplace
DC Collaborative at the Skyland Workforce Center. The Skyland Workforce
Center is a project of the Workplace DC, a collaborative of local
nonprofit organizations that provide employment-related services. The
Center's on-site partners coordinate services to connect job seekers
with opportunities and supports that help them obtain and retain
employment. STRIVE DC and Jubilee Jobs work together to provide work
readiness training and job placement; Byte Back Teaches computer
literacy, with emphasis on skills needs to search, apply and be
competitive for jobs; Southeast Ministry brings GED tutoring, and
Samaritan Ministry provides one-on-one employment supports, as well as
entrepreneurship training. The Workplace DC Collaborative is a one-stop
shop of intensive services that can help the chronically unemployed
learn how to navigate the barriers that keeps them from finding
employment services.
STRIVE DC's five full-time and two part-time staff serve well over
1,500 annually. This includes about 1,000 people who receive some kind
of staff assistance applying for our program and beginning case
management files, but who drop out for various reasons; prior graduates
who receive our signature 2 years of follow-up services; approximately
100 who graduate, and more than 500 men and women who receive donated
business attire. An additional 88 receive our attitudinal training at
the Skyland Workforce Center.
Our Impact
The STRIVE DC attitudinal job-readiness program has been able to
consistently place at least 60% of its graduates in jobs and keep over
60% of those working for at least 2 years. In 2014, 78% of clients were
placed in employment making an average wage of $12.95 per hour and 82%
of those placed are still employed.
Conclusion
The STRIVE DC program provides practical guidance to applying for a
job and staying employed in the professional world. At the same time it
is intensive, confrontational, and sometimes emotional. But more than
anything else it builds the participants' confidence in their own
natural abilities and self-worth. Yet, it is important to understand
that many participants have difficult home situations.
While the training addresses their attitudes and helps them look
within them to figure out what they need to succeed it is not just the
training that allows for the success of the program. It is the
essential case-by-case management and referrals provided to
participants during each phase of the program. The Retention Specialist
helps clients connect to social service providers to help them overcome
any barriers that may prevent them from completing training and being
employed. Such barriers include the lack of childcare; lack of safe
housing or dealing with substance abuse issues either their own issues
or those of family members. I can attest to the services of STRIVE DC.
I was once an unemployed client on food stamps, who was placed in a job
after completing the STRIVE DC program. After working successfully for
6 months I was given the opportunity to give back to STRIVE DC. I
served as a Job Developer after which I was promoted to Deputy Director
and then with hard work I was promoted to Executive Director. I am here
for the purpose of Helping D.C. Residents Obtain Employment and Get off
Food Stamps. Thank you for your time today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Samuels. Dr. Babcock?
STATEMENT OF ELISABETH D. BABCOCK, MCRP, Ph.D.,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CRITTENTON WOMEN'S
UNION, BOSTON, MA
Dr. Babcock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee. I come to you as the head of the Crittenton Women's
Union, which is an organization based in Boston that leads a
network of 35 public agencies and partner organizations across
the country in finding expedited pathways out of poverty. Our
work combines direct services research and public education to
improve participant outcomes, to improve program design and
capacity building for the field, and to create systems change.
The pathway out of poverty is a complex and difficult one,
but what we know for a fact with our own work is that families
can do this. They can make this pathway to self-sufficiency
that is such a complex pathway. We, within our organization,
work with 1,400 individuals in a year, and, as you can see from
the statistics on the screen, these families that we work with
are very complex, high need, and extremely low income. But what
you will also see from the statistics on the screen is that,
with the right supports, these families are capable of
achieving really amazing results.
You can see that, when working with families for a year,
families that are currently homeless, formerly homeless,
victims of domestic violence, families with great instability
in their lives, that over 74 percent actually, within a year,
become engaged in school and/or working, and that their current
earnings after a year can be $12.60 an hour. Those that have
been working with the kind of coaching models that we provide
over 3 years attain family sustaining wages. I want to
emphasize that. We have 31 percent of families that have been
working with the programs for 3 years or so actually able to
attain the education and the career paths necessary to support
their families, improve their credit, and to actually build the
kind of life that they need to be self-sustaining.
Now, what does it take for our families to be able to do
this? Well, first of all, it takes understanding that getting
out of poverty requires multiple cylinders to fire at the same
time, that there are multiple areas that can bring any family
into the trap of poverty, or can make it difficult for them to
get out. We specialize in working with families to improve
these five areas of self-sufficiency development, their well-
being, their family stability, their education, their financial
management, and ultimately their career, to allow them to
optimize their own development and pathways to get to the point
that they are self-sustaining. This is a brain science informed
process that allows for the issues and stresses of poverty to
be taken into consideration in how these families are coached.
So what does it really take for us to be able to get
families to the point that they do not require the kind of
safety net subsidies that we are talking about today? Well,
first of all, we have to understand that families must engage
in very hard work to get the education and training that they
need to attain the family sustaining jobs. We know that 75
percent of the jobs of the economy as of 2020 are predicted to
require education beyond high school, and all of the jobs that
pay family sustaining wages require this. Safety net supports
are imperative while families are on the self-sufficiency
pathway because, obviously, when they don't have enough to
support their families, they need support in getting the
skills, and getting to the place that they can.
They need additional training beyond high school, and they
need the persistence and the resilience to stay on a course
which is often, as you can imagine, one of struggling to keep
body and family together, get the education that they need, and
working at the same time. But we know that our families can do
it. The programs that partner with families effectively
understand, first of all, that everyone comes to this journey
with different strengths and weaknesses, and that the pathway
to self-sufficiency is an individual one that requires time and
requires, as I said, a multi-faceted approach.
The next thing we know is that there has to be a laser
focus on goals and outcomes, and a partnership between
providers and families to really work on achieving successive
goals, so that they ultimately can get to where they want to
be. This requires staff who are well trained, and have a short
and long term focus on goals achievement. And last, but not
least, we know that we need to have frameworks that have been
alluded to earlier, case management frameworks that go beyond
case management, but actually do skill building that helps
participants build the decision-making skills, the behavior
management skills, and the persistence and resilience to stay
on a very difficult, complicated course of juggling multiple
things at the same time.
What I want to say to you is there is no one pathway out of
poverty, but, in today's world of the knowledge-based economy,
families need to have partnerships in staying the course, and
following and finding the course that is going to bring them to
those family sustaining jobs. But when we offer these, all our
programs are voluntary, and families will voluntarily start
working, will voluntarily go on to these difficult courses, and
will stay the course until they have achieved the family
sustaining jobs that they and their families need. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Babcock follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elisabeth D. Babcock, MCRP, Ph.D., President and
Chief Executive Officer, Crittenton Women's Union, Boston, MA
Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and distinguished
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today. I have been the President and CEO of Crittenton
Women's Union (CWU) since our founding in 2006 from the merger of two
of Massachusetts' oldest organizations serving low-income women (The
Crittenton, founded 1827, and The Women's Education and Industrial
Union, founded 1867). The merger brought together the direct services
expertise of the Crittenton and the research and advocacy work for
which The Women's Educational and Industrial Union was best known to
form CWU. We have since grown into one of the largest and most
respected human service organizations in Massachusetts.
Annually, CWU serves approximately 1,400 individuals in the Greater
Boston area through the following:
Housing: CWU is one of the largest providers of emergency
and transitional shelter in Massachusetts. We serve about 420
families a year at our homeless and domestic violence shelters,
and through supportive housing services for formerly homeless
families in permanent housing. CWU's holistic approach to
delivering services helps families simultaneously attain stable
housing and reach for economic independence.
Mobility Mentoring' Services (MMS): Programs in
this service area provide opportunities to think and plan long-
term so that participants can take steps toward an economically
secure future. Skill building workshops and one-on-one meetings
with staff help participants master basic job readiness and
life skills; learn personal financial management techniques;
enroll in education/training programs; and/or land entry-level
jobs on career tracks that will put them closer to earning a
family sustaining wage.
Career Family Opportunity (CFO): CFO is CWU's most
comprehensive economic independence program. Piloted in 2009,
this program requires a 5 year commitment, but promises that
women will come out on the other end with both $10,000 in
personal savings and a job paying a family sustaining wage.
Research & Advocacy: CWU conducts rigorous research into the
barriers disadvantaged women face in their efforts to gain
economic security. With this knowledge, CWU creates tools,
identifies best practices, develops programs, and makes policy
recommendations. An understanding of low-income women's
struggles, combined with extensive research and knowledge of
best practices, make CWU a powerful advocate for legislative
initiatives to remove obstacles to economic independence.
CWU's participants are low-income individuals, mostly single
mothers. They have an average monthly income of $674, and a median
annual income of $7,968, well below the Federal poverty level of
$19,000. In addition, 75 of families served are homeless or have a
recent history of homelessness, and 60% of adults are unemployed.
Approximately 45% are Black, 21% Latino(a), 10% White, 2% Asian.
The CWU ``action-tank'' model integrates direct services, research
and advocacy in a manner that allows us to develop and test new
programmatic pathways out of poverty, then share these tools with the
field, and use our learning to improve public policies. CWU is like a
teaching hospital where, in addition to delivering direct services, we
invent new approaches informed by research and best practices, evaluate
their effectiveness, and create added value by taking our learning
public.
Moving out of poverty is no longer a process of following a simple
roadmap to a good job. It is a complex, multi-year process that
requires families to:
1. maintain stability,
2. optimize money management,
3. gain post-secondary education and/or training,
4. find their way into a family-sustaining career--all at the same
time.
Such a task is difficult under the best circumstances, but new
brain science shows that the inherent stress of living in poverty
negatively impacts a low-income individual's capacity to deploy the
problem-solving skills, multi-tasking, and behavioral persistence
necessary to journey to economic independence and create better lives
for themselves. Research shows that brain development is not just a
result of genetic inheritance, but is also strongly affected by
environmental risk factors, including exposure to toxins, poor
nutrition, prenatal drug use, low social status, stress, and violence,
all of which are more prevalent in low-income households. In addition,
the constant struggle to make ends meet, deal with social bias, and
protect against trauma also place extraordinary demands on cognitive
bandwidth.
At the same time, Federal and state budgets get tighter, leaving
fewer resources for single mothers, homeless families and low-income
women who together comprise CWU's target population. According to the
Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, over the past decade, funding
has been reduced for adult education, job training, child care
subsidies and many other programs that help those in poverty cover
basic expenses while pursuing the education and training needed to
become economically secure. Since these services are mostly used by
women, women and children bear the brunt of the budget cuts.
In 2013, CWU's proprietary research, the Massachusetts Economic
Independence Index, revealed that a single parent with two children in
Massachusetts needs an annual income of almost $66,000--more than 3\1/
2\ times the Federal Poverty Level--to pay for an apartment, childcare,
health care, and other basic living expenses without government
support. This reality disproportionately affects low-income women. In
fact, women are the heads of household for 72% of the poor families in
Massachusetts (2010 American Community Survey, U.S. Census). Poor
single mothers often rely on a combination of low-wage work, public
housing, employment training, child care subsidies and other public
services to make ends meet. Yet, wait-lists for subsidized housing and
childcare are often years' long. Given these complexities, the work of
social service organizations has never been more important. CWU helps
women chart an individualized pathway out of chronic, systemic problems
that prevent them from leading economically secure lives without public
or private assistance.
CWU defines economic independence as being able to afford a fair
standard for housing, healthcare, nutrition, and child care while
avoiding dependence on supports such as subsidized housing or nutrition
assistance. The shift to a knowledge-based economy has meant that
virtually all family-sustaining wage jobs require post-secondary
education. However, less than half of those under the poverty level
have such education. Recognizing that this is a high standard to
achieve for many families, it is nevertheless an important goal to aim
towards. In order to achieve this standard of living, low-income
families must navigate complicated challenges for years because there
are no short-term career paths to the family-sustaining jobs of today.
Through applied research and development, CWU has developed a new
more effective pathway for economic mobility called Mobility
MentoringTM. Mobility Mentoring is the professional practice
of partnering with participants using a strength-based model so that
over time they may acquire the resources, skills, and sustained
behavior changes necessary to attain and preserve their economic
independence. This unique client-case worker dynamic is the core of our
work. It is this partnership that empowers participants to acquire set
long and short term goals and develop the resources, skills, and
sustained behavior changes necessary over time to attain and preserve
their economic independence.
The central tool in for Mobility Mentoring is the Bridge to Self-
SufficiencyTM (the Bridge). The Bridge is a brain science-
informed scaffold that positions a person's advancement from poverty to
self-sufficiency as a journey across a bridge supported by five
pillars: family stability, well-being, education and training,
financial management, and employment and career management. Not only is
each pillar individually critical to supporting the Bridge as a whole,
but the pillars are also mutually connected and reinforcing. When one
falls, the others often do as well.
Mobility Mentors work with participants to help them create
practical, achievable plans to attain their long-term goals. They then
meet with participants regularly track the completion of goals and
their progress along the five pillars of the Bridge to Self-
Sufficiency, offer guidance, and direct them to valuable resources.
They also conduct annual in-depth evaluations and bi-annual meetings to
help participants set new short-term goals.
Crittenton Women's Union's Theory of Change Bridge to Self Sufficiency
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
May 2014.
Mobility MentoringTM has four essential elements:
1. The Bridge to Self-SufficiencyTM scaffolding: The
Bridge (see above) is a brain-science informed ``scaffold''
that builds decision-making, allows participants to
organize and achieve positive steps, and aids in the
development of these skills--as an adaptive device that
supplements decision-making skill deficits and as a
coaching tool for improving the participant's executive
functioning (EF) skills. The basic EF skills are: working
memory, impulse control, and mental flexibility; these are
the primary decision-making skills necessary for the
problem solving, goal setting, and goals attainment
necessary to achieve and sustain economic independence.
Mobility Mentoring requires use of the Bridge as both an
assessment tool and a framework within which a participant
can chart their path to economic mobility and independence.
2. Clear individualized goal setting and outcomes measurement:
Mobility Mentoring uses the SMART (Specific, Measurable,
Attainable, Realistic, Time-bound) goals format to set
economic mobility goals and collect data to measure both
individual client and program progress and effectiveness.
3. Coaching: A mentor-led process designed to improve decision-
making, persistence, resilience. Through practice, the
process becomes internalized, enabling participants to
mentor themselves.
4. Incentives: A system of positive rewards, both tangible and
intangible, supports goals achievement. Incentives are
based on the difficulty and complexity of the goals
achieved. Some participants are also eligible for an IDA
matched savings program, enabling them to build up reserve
funds faster. This not only motivates participants, but
also eliminates a significant barrier to sustaining
economic independence--the inability to develop assets when
struggling to make ends meet.
Initial results of Mobility Mentoring have been very strong.
Hundreds of participants from public housing and shelters have been
graduating from college, saving money, and increasing earnings at rates
three times higher than average.
Overall participant achievements:
74% in school and/or working.
Current earnings $12.60/hr.
74% banked; 57% have savings.
Those in the program 3 years:
31% achieved living wage jobs of $44,138.
65% attained new technical certificate or college degree.
Savings of $2,085/pp.
60% improved credit score.
Outstanding Outcomes
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Crittenton Women's Union, May 26, 2015.
The current system of public assistance can help poor families
survive but is not designed to bring families to economic self-
sufficiency. Based on our work, we believe it is possible to move some
people to become fully self-sufficient but it takes significant, time,
well-trained staff, and a program model that recognizes the complexity
of people's lives. While our goal is to help people become as
independent as possible, the safety net plays a critical role in
stabilizing families so that they can begin the process of setting
short and long-term goals that will lead them to a place where they can
survive independent of safety net programs and supports.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Please free to contact me
with questions or for more information at Redacted or Redacted.
Further Resources
Babcock, Elisabeth, D. Stanford Social Innovation Review (Fall
2014). ``Rethinking Poverty.'' http://www.liveworkthrive.org/site/
assets/docs/SSIR_Fall_2014_
Rethinking_Poverty.pdf.
Babcock, Elisabeth, D. Using Brain Science to Design New Pathways
Out of Poverty. (2014) Boston: Crittenton Women's Union. http://
www.liveworkthrive.org/site/assets/
Using%20Brain%20Science%20to%20Create%20Pathways%20Out%20of%20
Poverty%20FINAL%20online.pdf.
Liberman, Ruth, J. A Plan for Building Skilled Workers And Strong
Families Through the Massachusetts TAFDC (Transitional Assistance To
Families With Dependent Children) Program. (2014). Boston: Crittenton
Women's Union. http://www.liveworkthrive.org/site/assets/docs/
OnlineSkilled_Workes_Strong_Families_
Through_MATAFDC.pdf.
PowerPoint Presentation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Babcock. Mr. Collins?
STATEMENT OF GRANT E. COLLINS II, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDCAP
REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC., NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Collins. Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member
Peterson, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you
for inviting me to testify on the past, present, and future of
SNAP: the means to climbing the economic ladder. I am currently
the Senior Vice President of Fedcap Rehabilitation Services,
Incorporated's Workforce Development Practice Area. Fedcap is a
nonprofit human service company that specializes in addressing
the economic well-being of those with barriers to work. Today I
will be offering insights regarding a program model that I
oversee in New York City known as the Wellness Comprehensive
Assessment Rehabilitation and Employment Program, or WeCARE.
The largest program of its type, WeCARE program engages
over 50,000 public assistance recipients per year that have
health issues through comprehensive case management, and a full
range of customized activities that help individuals with
health claims reach their highest levels of self-sufficiency.
As you can see from the slide, WeCARE provides those with
barriers an equal opportunity to transition from welfare to
work. The model is consistent with Federal Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families, or TANF, rules that include time limited
assistance and required participation in federally approved
work activities in exchange for cash assistance. However, 100
percent of WeCARE participants do not believe that they can
work, and since 2005, over 480,000 assessments have been
completed.
WeCARE presents a unique path for someone with a health
claim at the point of application. Presenting a health claim in
most local or state public assistance programs leads to no
work. As you can see in the second slide, most applying for
benefits that present the health claim are either exempted,
with no activity, and/or given assistance to apply for Federal
disability, rather than assistance to find a job. The WeCARE
model does something different with the same person that makes
a health claim. As illustrated in Slide 3, the health claim is
evaluated, as the individual must complete an independent
medical assessment as a condition of eligibility. The
assessment is conducted by medical doctors to determine the
level of work the individual is capable of doing.
The four assessment outcomes listed on the slide are fully
employable, which means no accommodations were needed. The
second is employable with accommodations. Next is temporarily
unemployable, which was also referred to as needing wellness or
condition management. Often individuals in this outcome need a
condition management plan that may last up to 90 days to allow
the condition to stabilize before determining the individual's
ongoing work capability. The majority of individuals are able
to work once this plan is completed. There will be some
individuals that are determined unable to work in the next 12
months who are then provided assistance with applying for
possible Federal disability benefits.
After 10 years and over 485,000 assessments completed, the
outcomes are quite revealing, as seen in this fourth slide.
Though all did not think they could work, we consistently find
that six percent of those completing the independent
assessments are determined to be fully employable, 44 percent
are determined to be able to work with an accommodation, 33
percent need condition management, and 17 percent are possible
candidates for Federal disability benefits. The outcomes show
that fully \1/2\ of the entire group can work, when they did
not think they could, or a doctor told them that they could
not, and another 33 percent can get ready for work as their
medical conditions are stabilized. In addition, a summary view
of employable with accommodations, in Slide 5, shows that a
range of work and work activities can be successfully
completed, and that many can, and do, participate for their
required hours, despite their barriers or accommodation needs.
Slide 6 provides contract year 10 outcomes for assessments,
wellness completions, placements, retention numbers, as well as
the percentage placed, and the number receiving SSI.
In closing, I would like the Committee to know that, based
on my experience, I believe the WeCARE program outcomes suggest
that more can be expected from those that have been told, or
believe that they cannot work, or achieve self-sufficiency. I
believe that knowing the dignity of work can become a viable
pathway out of poverty, and far more can work than we even
thought possible, including those with health and other
challenges. I appreciate the Committee's interest in this
issue. I hope the Members of this Committee can work together
with this panel to ensure that SNAP is doing everything
intended to move more families up the economic ladder. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Grant E. Collins II, Senior Vice President,
Workforce Development and Executive Director, Fedcap Rehabilitation
Services, Inc., New York, NY
Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and
distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to
testify on the Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: The Means to Climbing
the Economic Ladder.
I am currently the Senior Vice President of Fedcap Rehabilitation
Services, Inc.'s workforce development practice area. Fedcap is human
services company that specializes in addressing the economic well-being
of those with barriers to work. Today I will be offering insights
regarding a program model that I oversee in New York City known as the
Wellness, Comprehensive Assessment, Rehabilitation and Employment
(WeCARE) program.
The largest program of its type in the United States, the WeCARE
program engages over 50,000 public assistance recipients per year that
have health issues through comprehensive case management and a full
range of customized activities that help individuals with health claims
reach their highest levels of self-sufficiency.
As you can see from the slide WeCARE provides those with barriers
an equal opportunity to transition from welfare to work. Just like most
TANF programs reciprocity is required and the program is consistent
with TANF time limits and participation requirements. However, 100
percent of WeCARE participants do not believe they can work and since
2005 over 485,000 have participated.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
WeCARE presents a unique path for someone with a health claim at
the point of application. Presenting a health claim in most local or
state public assistance programs leads to no work. As you can see in
the second slide most applying for benefits that present a health claim
are either exempted with no activity and/or given assistance to apply
for Federal disability rather than assistance to find a job.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The WeCARE model does something different with the same person that
makes a health claim. As illustrated in Slide 3, the health claim is
evaluated as the individual must complete an independent medical
assessment as a condition of eligibility. The assessment is conducted
by medical doctors to determine the level of work the individual is
capable of doing.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The four assessment outcomes are listed on the slide are (1) fully
employable which means no accommodations were needed; (2) the second is
employable with accommodations. Next is (3) temporarily unemployable
which is also referred to as needing wellness or condition management.
Often individuals in with this outcome need a condition management plan
that may last up to 90 days to allow the condition(s) to stabilize
before determining the individual's ongoing work capability. The
majority of individuals are able to work once this plan is completed.
There will be some individuals that are determined unable to work in
the next 12 months who then are provided assistance with applying for
(4) possible Federal disability benefits.
After 10 years and over 485,000 independent assessments completed
the outcomes are quite revealing as seen in Slide 4. Though all did not
think they could work, we find that six percent of those completing the
independent assessments are determined to be fully employable, 44
percent are determined to be able to work with an accommodation, 33
percent need condition management, and only 17 percent are possible
candidates that may not be able to work. The outcomes show that fully
half of the entire group can work even when they did not think they
could or a doctor told them that they could not and another 33 percent
can get ready for work as their medical conditions are stabilized.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In addition, a summary view of employable with accommodations in
Slide 5 shows that a full range of work and work activities can be
successfully completed and that many can and do participate for their
required hours despite their barriers or accommodations needs.
Slide 6 provides contract year 10 outcomes for assessments,
wellness plans, placement and retention numbers as well as percentage
placed and the number receiving SSI.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In closing, I would like the Committee to know that based on my
experience, I believe the WeCARE program outcomes suggest that more can
be expected from those that have been told or believe they cannot work
or achieve self-sufficiency. I believe that knowing the dignity of work
can become a viable path out of poverty and far more can work than we
may have thought possible including those with health and other
challenges.
I appreciate the Committee's interest in this issue, and I hope
that the Members of this Committee can work together with this panel to
ensure that SNAP is working as intended moving more families up the
economic ladder. I look forward to answering any questions you might
have.
The Chairman. Well, I thank the panel, and I appreciate
your comments this morning, and look forward to your answers to
our questions. I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Each one of you mentioned the value of case management to
successful outcomes. I am wondering about the training of case
managers, and the way their attitudes toward getting their
clients back into the workforce. Personal experiences always
drive decisions better than anything else. I have a constituent
back home who runs a home health care visiting nurses kind of
deal, where folks go into homes, people, elderly--and her case
load increased. She went to her workforce, who was working part
time, and said, I can move you to full time. They all said yes,
that would be great. And then, 2 or 3 days later, came back and
said they couldn't take those extra hours because, in
consultation with their case manager, it didn't operate in
their best interest to take on that additional work. It would
trim or eliminate benefits.
Starting with Mr. Raglow, can you give us some concept of
how we address this cliff, where you move just a little bit
above the mark of where you qualify for benefits, you lose
those, the income you are getting from that doesn't offset what
you have lost in benefits. How do we deal with this transition
period, where folks want to work, want to move there, but it is
not in their individual self-interest to do that because the
way we have the system structured?
Mr. Raglow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a great
question. The complexity of the various programs that are
assisting an individual often lead to that result, where a
marginal increase in their income results in a more than
significant loss in other resources that they have available to
address their needs. So it is possible that we could taper
those, more of a graded degradation of available services based
on income, instead of a straight line cutoff. Or, in the case
of one of the programs I work with, Welfare to Work, instead of
giving them 100 percent rent assistance at the maximum amount
each month, we sort of de-incremented it month by month, so
that by the time they were at the end of the program, they were
accustomed to paying that rent, and so it wasn't 100 percent
increase in their rent, it was a fractional increase over time.
Thank you.
The Chairman. So the rent program allowed you that
flexibility to work with each client that way?
Mr. Raglow. At the time we ran the program, we actually
were addressed by the state, by the government oversight
agency, saying we weren't spending money fast enough. And so we
engaged with them, and said our outcomes are better, because by
the time they are done with the program, they are accustomed to
paying the rent as they have been----
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Raglow.--working their way through. That was the
Welfare to Work program in Las Vegas.
The Chairman. Okay. Mr. Samuels, you had some pretty
impressive statistics on success rates of folks going to work.
First, thank you for your personal story. I appreciate you
sharing that with us. Thinking about statistics on folks who go
through your program, and move themselves off of the SNAP
program, which is our focus here today, do you do long term
assessments, or keep track of folks who fall back into the SNAP
program? If they don't come back to your program, do you know?
The 63 percent that move off, are those folks, like yourself,
permanently off, or for the most part permanently off? Can you
walk us through your follow-ups?
Mr. Samuels. Well, at STRIVE, our case management plan is a
2 year plan, so we follow a lot of our clients for 2 years. I
can tell you right now for the last 2 years that 83 percent
have gone off of food stamps. The other thing is that, just to
piggyback on what Mr. Raglow said, with a lot of our clients,
the issue with them is with jobs. When they get a job, and you
cut their benefits off, what I have come in contact with a lot
of my clients is that a lot of them say, ``Well, if I quit my
job again, I can just go back on the food stamps, or the
benefits, and continue to support myself.'' And, it is not
really supporting, it is a handout, we say at STRIVE. We want
to promote hand-ups at STRIVE.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, I appreciate that. Mr.
Collins, you have said that about 44 percent of the folks you
assessed can go to work with accommodations. Can you give us a
quick kind of list of what those accommodations might be for
employers?
Mr. Collins. Sure, Mr. Chairman. Some examples would
include larger font on a computer when they are at the
computer. A wrist brace, maybe a back brace, or a larger chair.
Many of the accommodations are quite reasonable, and not
largely expensive.
The Chairman. That in and of themselves wouldn't be a
barrier to an employer wanting to bring somebody on? It
wouldn't be super expensive to make those accommodations?
Mr. Collins. No, sir, it would not be.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. McGovern, for 5
minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much, and I want to thank all
the witnesses for being here. And we certainly support the work
that you are doing to try to help people who are struggling to
get themselves into a better position. I have been advocating
for a long time that the White House ought to do a White House
Conference on food, nutrition and hunger to figure out how do
we end hunger in this country? How do we help people transition
to a more stable place? Because, quite frankly, to do that
requires a discussion that goes far beyond the jurisdiction of
this Committee.
We are responsible for dealing with SNAP here. A lot of the
training programs we are talking about are funded from the
Department of Labor and other agencies and departments. We need
to keep the focus on the importance of SNAP, and the importance
of having an adequate SNAP benefit as people are working their
way through some of your programs to hopefully end up with a
job.
As I pointed out in my opening statement, the vast majority
of people on the program are kids, and senior citizens, and
people with disabilities, many of whom can't work, and we don't
expect to work. Of those who are able-bodied, a majority work.
But the problem is a majority of those who are working are
still earning so little that they are still on SNAP.
Dr. Babcock, in your testimony, if I do the math correctly,
I calculate that if I am a graduate of your program and making
an average, you stated of $12.95 an hour, times 40 hours per
week, times 4.3 weeks per month, equals about $2,242 in gross
income per month. Based on that calculation, and without any
deductions for child care or housing, a single mother with two
kids still qualifies for SNAP. Maybe you can comment on how
many of your successful clients still need to use SNAP.
And also, I would like you to comment on the fact that one
glove doesn't fit all. Of the people that you deal with, not
everybody fits into a nice, neat category. There are individual
and unique challenges to each individual that sometimes pose
problems, and I would appreciate any kind of commentary. Dr.
Babcock and Mr. Samuels, if you want to?
Dr. Babcock. Well, I would respond with my view that $12.60
is sort of an opening point.
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Dr. Babcock. That is employment, the beginnings of
employment, and hopefully above minimum wage employment, and
that it is incumbent on us to work with families to help them
move up the ladder until they can reach those $44,000 a year
jobs that we actually move families into. To do that requires
time, and it requires persistence. And, as you said, it is not
a one size fits----
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Dr. Babcock.--all process. It means engaging families, and
getting the kind of training that they can excel at, and
helping them find those pathways in juggling work, and a home
life, and education at the same time to get to that place. And
every family comes to that journey with different strengths and
weaknesses, and we have to be able to accommodate those
strengths and weaknesses, and help build out a strength, and
minimize the challenges that families face along the way. But
it is a process that requires time, and it requires supports to
help keep body and soul together until the gap is filled by
their own wages.
Mr. McGovern. All right. Mr. Samuels?
Mr. Samuels. The good thing about the STRIVE program is
that--our case management. We are checking on our clients--
well, initially we are giving our clients an assessment,
wherein, we are looking at what their needs are. So if you lack
education, you may need to go back to school while you take
that job making $12.95. A good thing is that for us this year,
on average, our clients are making $12----
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Mr. Samuels.--and 95 . But once you have your plan, you
have to continually look back at your plan. That is the goal of
my case management, case managers, to make sure clients are
following their plan.
Mr. McGovern. I think all of you have made the case about
good case management, but the fact is that some SNAP recipients
don't need case management, they are already working. And
effective case management, I would assume you would all agree,
is not cheap. I am just thinking in terms of what might be
coming down the road here. If there were mandates requiring
everybody to go through a case management process, I have to
believe that you can't do that. And I am not sure that that is
the right way to do it. But, obviously those who need case
management should be able to get it. That is an expensive
proposition. None of this is cheap, am I right?
Mr. Collins. Congressman, I would suggest that case
management is a wise investment.
Mr. McGovern. I don't disagree that it is a wise
investment, but I am just saying one glove doesn't fit all, and
not everybody needs case management. If we would require case
management for more people, then the money has to be there.
Otherwise, it is kind of like we are requiring people that are
on SNAP to have job training or be in a job, but in many places
they don't have access to job training. So the mandates are
good, and the rhetoric sounds tough, but if we are not going to
provide this support, then it doesn't help.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Yoho,
for 5 minutes. Mr. Yoho, for 5 minutes. That would be Ted Yoho.
Mr. Yoho. That is fine. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it,
Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you guys being here. And this is an
important thing, as we are all aware of the farm bill, 80
percent of that goes to nutritional programs, and it is so
important that we make the needed reforms so that the money is
there for the programs that are working, and get rid of the
programs that aren't working. I have been through that process
myself, and so I know the importance of that.
And as I read your testimonies, and the reports that we
had, it talked about how the faith-based--I think it was yours,
Mr. Raglow, where you were talking about you go in and you
counsel people. Actually, you all had a component of that,
where you talked about going in and counseling, teaching people
jobs, and held them accountable. The accountability factor, how
does that play, for a large portion of people weaning
themselves off of Federal assistance?
Mr. Collins. It does, Congressman. This actually supports
the previous point I was going to make. Case management comes
in many different forms. One is to help navigate the person
through the process of becoming engaged, and possibly becoming
employed, but there is also retention case management and/or
transitional benefit case management. And so it comes in
different forms, and all of these are critical if a person is
going to successfully make their way through to becoming more
self-reliant.
Mr. Yoho. And then, Mr. Samuels, did you say you followed
people for 2 years?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Yoho. And you said 83 percent, roughly, of the people
that moved out got off of assistance?
Mr. Samuels. Correct.
Mr. Yoho. Have you guys experienced--we had a house where
we had a Section 8 family living in it, and there was about
seven children in there. And what we saw was she had her own
business, it was a cleaning business. She worked day and night.
And as she moved up the economic scale, her assistance came
down almost at the same time. What is your experience in that?
And what I was thinking is, yes, we want people off the
programs, but we can't take them off too early, because what
happens is they are always under the thumb of a Federal
program, and they can't get away from it. What is your
experience, or your recommendations, Mr. Raglow? We will just
go down the line.
Mr. Raglow. Thank you. I believe that case management
actually connects the various programs. The challenge, as
mentioned earlier by Mr. McGovern, is that this is SNAP, and
then some other hearing about another program, and some other
hearing about another program. But case managers are going to
take a look at the individual circumstances of the client
before them, connect them to all those available resources, and
integrate them into a path that will hopefully get them out of
the conditions that brought them to us.
Mr. Yoho. Mr. Samuels, what is your feeling?
Mr. Samuels. Well, I wanted to talk about just my personal
experience with that. So when I was a job developer, I helped a
young lady get a job. She was making almost $20 an hour. And as
soon as she got her first check, they cut all of her benefits.
So then what ended up happening is she ended up having to work
less hours because she was making too much money. If we could
find a way, you guys can find a way, to not just cut off
benefits again, to just gradually, as individuals make more
money, or just support them, that is the main thing. They need
support to transition off.
Mr. Yoho. We can do that with your help. We need that
transition period, and I would like to have some comments on
that. Dr. Babcock?
Dr. Babcock. I think the transition is absolutely
necessary, but we also have to understand that families who are
going to be able to make those increases, they need to have
someone standing by them to help them figure out how to do it.
I mean, my families, if you tell them, you can get a job paying
you $40,000, $50,000 a year, and you can train for it in a year
and a half at a community college, and then you say, be a
CADCAM specialist, a surgical technologist, they won't know
what you are talking----
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Dr. Babcock.--about. And so you have to give them
information and connection into those paths in order for them
to be increasing their wages at the same time that the benefits
are decreasing.
Mr. Yoho. Mr. Collins, real quickly?
Mr. Collins. In the programs that I have seen across the
country, many of them have what are known as earned income
disregards. So what they are able to do is, with the
flexibility given to them, they are able to design a package
that helps incentivize work, and continued work, and retention,
by tapering the amount of the benefit along with the increase
in earnings. And I would suggest that combining the benefit
with earnings for a period of time is a wise investment of
resources.
Mr. Yoho. Let me just touch on something. In 1997 President
Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Act. We saw the largest drop in welfare recipients
during that period of time. In 2009, with the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, the work requirement was waived by this
Administration, and again in July 12, 2012 HHS issued an
information memoranda inviting states to apply for waivers. In
your opinions, do you think the work requirements are
important? And you can submit that, and I am out of time. Thank
you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Aguilar, 5 minutes.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
opportunity. Dr. Babcock, you talked a little bit about kind of
a wraparound coverage, in the sense that it takes all of these
different types of conversations to make success happen. Can
you talk a little bit about your research and your discussion?
Your testimony mentions, with respect to the stress that some
of these families are under, and how that affects, in a
negative way, the decisions and the outcomes that transpire.
Dr. Babcock. Well, this process of multitasking your way
out of poverty, of taking care of family, of going to school
and working at the same time, moving up a career, managing
money, this requires incredibly sophisticated navigational
skills and decision-making skills that are very much impacted,
we know, by new research in brain science, very much impacted
by the stresses of poverty themselves. So new discoveries in
neurology and behavioral sciences show us that the people who
are most under stress, those at the bottom of the economic
ladder, are the ones whose decision-making skills are most
compromised by that stress itself.
And so part of the coaching that has to be done is not just
connecting people to benefits, and helping them understand the
pathways, but actually also coaching the decision-making,
problem solving, and persistence that is necessary to be able
to multi-task your way out of poverty.
Mr. Aguilar. But these safety net programs provide a pillar
of what is necessary?
Dr. Babcock. Absolutely. The science itself shows without a
doubt that for every $1,000 or so that the household has
coming, whether earned, or where the source is from, it
decreases the stresses on decision-making and thinking that is
necessary in order for families to be able to work, and go to
school, and take care of themselves at the same time. So we
know safety net subsidies are a key to supporting individuals
who are trying to make their way to this family sustaining job.
Mr. Aguilar. All right. Thank you so much. If I could ask
the other witnesses to comment on the conversation that we were
just having about case management and flexibility. What
additional flexibility do you feel is necessary to ensure, as
Mr. McGovern was saying, that full time worker, managing child
care, managing full time work, and still having wages that are
so depressed that they qualify for these programs? How do you
provide case management and those wraparound coverages that Dr.
Babcock has mentioned? How do you provide that in that type of
setting, where hours of the day are just diminished? Mr.
Collins first, and then Mr. Raglow.
Mr. Collins. Sure. I think there are a number of ways to do
that. Retention services are a great way to help people in the
long term continue to navigate their way up. I think you have
to take a longer term view of what success looks like. The
first job might not be the last job that they have while we
continue to work with this individual, case management will
extend itself likely over a year or more. This, I believe, is a
wise investment, particularly as individuals are having to
transition and navigate through all of the things that my
colleague just mentioned.
I think we need to be careful, however, not to have low
expectations here. I am confident that these families are
resilient and able to succeed if a high bar of expectation is
placed on them.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Mr. Raglow?
Mr. Raglow. The case management approach that Catholic
Charities takes tries to take advantage of those gifts that
they bring to the table. And it is different for each client
through the 16 different programs. We have a full continuum, so
some deal with homeless clients, couch surfing, living on the
streets, or living in their cars. And that is a different
approach than those who are coming in for rent and utility
assistance, where each client, before we assist them with rent
and utility assistance, we give them financial literacy 101 and
a few tools. But 76 percent of those who come to us say that
they have gotten skills and tools to address their situations
just from their interaction with us.
We offer Family HOPE, Help, Organize, Prioritize, Empower,
which is up to 18 months. But because it is a relationship,
where they take it, and how we help them, will vary client by
client. Thank you.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Mr. Samuels?
Mr. Samuels. I am sorry.
Mr. Aguilar. On the flexibility within case management, and
how you continue to offer that, in spite of full time
employees' child care concerns?
Mr. Samuels. So what we do once a month is we have alumni
support groups, peer to peer support groups. So it is just
peers, different families, talking about different issues that
come up, and they are managed by one of our case managers, to
help families talk about some of the issues that are coming up.
You may have a child care issue. One of the good things about
all of our programs is that word of mouth spreading from client
to client. It helps them navigate a lot of the issues that they
have.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Abraham, 5 minutes.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wow, some great
success stories you guys have, and I would suggest that the
four of you all could heal some of the ills of the world. I am
very impressed with your statistics, and they are objective
data that you are giving us. So I would say that if we can get
83--60 percent success rate--and even though that--they are not
a one glove fits all type deal, your data supports the pathway
that you all have chosen to go with all of these clients have
been very effective and very worthwhile, so congrats on that.
And I guess the question I have, and we will ask all the
panel. Mr. Samuels, I will start with you. You have your six
essential CORE tenets, so to speak. Certainly these types of
programs are replicable to other environments. Have you all
each talked to other programs to see, and tried to spread the
work, so to speak? Start with you, Mr. Samuels, you are----
Mr. Samuels. I am sorry, I missed the last part.
Mr. Abraham. I just want to know if--have you engaged with
other programs to try to replicate your model and expand your
model into----
Mr. Samuels. Okay.
Mr. Abraham.--areas?
Mr. Samuels. Well, the good thing about STRIVE DC is we are
part of a wonderful network across the--we have affiliates
across the country.
Mr. Abraham. You are in my State of Louisiana.
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Abraham. Yes.
Mr. Samuels. And we have----
Mr. Abraham. And I know about you guys.
Mr. Samuels. We have affiliates across the nation, and
twice a year we come together and we talk about best practices,
so what is working, what is not working, what we need to
change. Right now we are in the process of rolling out a new
curriculum, dealing with our training, and focusing on our case
management services to make sure that we give the clients what
they need, the support. I don't think I mentioned this in my
statement, but STRIVE stands for Support, Training Results In
Valuable Employees, because at the end of the day, that is what
we are looking for, valuable employees to the workforce.
Mr. Abraham. Mr. Raglow?
Mr. Raglow. Sir, we collaborate in our local community all
the time, and in our view, if you don't care who gets the
credit, you can get a lot more things done. So I am not in
competition with Salvation Army, city rescue mission, regional
food bank. We work together for the benefit of our clients. And
then, as a network, Catholic Charities USA, we share best
practices all across that forum----
Mr. Abraham. And are they receptive to your suggestions?
Mr. Raglow. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. And then the
Council on Accreditation is another step even higher than that,
where we apply best practices nationally to the program models
that we have in place across 16 different program sectors. Yes,
sir.
Mr. Abraham. Dr. Babcock?
Dr. Babcock. Yes. Our frameworks and approaches are shared
freely with the field as a whole, and so, because of that, we
now have a rapidly growing network of welfare offices, large
multi-state nonprofit organizations, small nonprofit
organizations, city development initiatives, all employing our
tools and approaches so that we can learn together how to
accelerate the innovation in economic mobility. So we are using
these frameworks to teach other what works, and how we can get
the best outcomes possible across the nation.
Mr. Abraham. Mr. Collins, are you sharing your program with
other avenues?
Mr. Collins. Absolutely. The model and framework is listed
as a best practice and is easily adaptable for most Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or other public assistance
recipient groups. We are having conversation with the Social
Security Administration--what do we do after someone has
applied and been denied SSI three, four, five times that would
then be unemployed for 3 and 4 years while waiting? What is the
next step for them? How do you get them engaged in work? And,
additionally, you can imagine how the model will work for
people who are coming out of the criminal justice system and
re-engaging in work. These are a few examples, whether the
individuals have mental or physical barriers, our model seems
to fit very well and we are continuing the conversations are
currently underway.
Mr. Abraham. I am just very impressed. I live in the heart
of the Delta, and have all my life, so I have been with
impoverished people all my life, and I can tell you, most of
them are motivated, smart, focused, and they want out of the
poverty level. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. David Scott,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Our welfare reform law permanently disqualifies
individuals from SNAP participation if they have been convicted
of a state or Federal felony involving the possession, use, or
distribution of a controlled substance, and a lifetime ban may
be applied for any drug felony conviction, regardless of
whether an offender served their sentence in prison or received
a lighter sentence due to the non-violent or minor nature of
the offense. And also a similar ban may also be imposed for
TANF funding services for these felony convictions.
And did you all know that now there are 2.2 million people
sitting in the prisons of the United States, in the jails? And
did you know that just 45 years ago we had only 400,000 people
in the United States in our prisons? It is an extraordinary
increase in a short amount of time. Another startling fact
about this is that 1.1 million of that 2.2 million are African-
American men. And what is even more startling is African-
American men make up only eight percent of the population of
this nation. Eight percent of the population of this nation,
but they make up 50 percent of those in jail. These are young
men, all basically fathers, with children there.
The reason I am bringing this up is because if we don't
look at this particular aspect of how we got here, what
happened between 1970 and now to get to the answer to our
problem? And as we get to the structure of how this is, we deny
help to them for food, number one. And number two, every year
we release 600,000 of them back into society. But yet over \1/
2\ of those are re-arrested within the first year. And within
the next 5 years, 75 percent of them.
And so, Mr. Samuels, you are dealing with this, and I am
sure some of the others are dealing with it, but what concerns
me about this is the denial, and we look at programs. We have
two SNAP E&T state pilot project summaries, but it doesn't
allow for any ex-offenders, or people because they have a
record. Now we have a controlled substance, marijuana, that is
being legalized state, after state, after state.
My whole point about this as we look at what happened, in
terms of this phenomenon, in 1970s, when the manufacturing
firms left the inner city, moved overseas, those jobs were
there, which these people, African-American men especially,
were able to get to, and to have, and provide for their
families. And at that same time, these networks of crack
cocaine were put into the African-American community. And do
you all know who was the maker of that framework? The
government. The CIA, through the Iran-Contra program,
established that in these inner cities. That was where this
drug situation was established, to pay for the Iran-Contra
rebels because the Federal Government wouldn't do it.
So my whole point is that we need to get real, and
understand we are not treating this situation right because we
are looking at it through these tainted lenses. These fellows
ain't going to get no jobs when they come out. These programs
that we are putting in place are not structured deep enough and
well enough for us to deal with the vast complexities of this
problem and come to Jesus on the moment of truth. We laid this
out. And, unfortunately, particularly African-American young
men fell right into it, many because they had no other way of
making a living.
Sorry about that, but it was important to get that point on
the record.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Newhouse, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, all of
you, for being here this morning. A very interesting and
important topic that we are discussing, so I appreciate that. I
was an agency director in my state, and one of our
responsibilities of the agency was the food programs, and so
this is something that is very dear to my heart as well.
Mr. Raglow, I appreciate your testimony. And you talked
about the informational poverty, and also economic poverty, and
made a distinction between the two. So could you just talk
about that a little bit, the lessons you have learned as it
relates to case management? Maybe you have some recommendations
for other organizations in those lessons, and maybe help me
understand the difference between those two terms?
Mr. Raglow. Absolutely, thank you for the question.
Informational poverty just simply means they don't know what
they don't know, and they don't know how to access those
resources, or what is available to help them. It doesn't matter
how many programs the Federal Government has if nobody knows--
or the right people don't know how to access them. And if there
are 70+ programs that assist the poor in some form or fashion,
that is not orchestrated well, it is not coordinated well. And
so you have to orchestrate it at the point of contact with the
individual client, and they need to avail themselves of those
resources.
Dr. Babcock made an excellent point that when you are
suffering some form of trauma, which might be food insecurity,
you are not thinking right, and so you are not making good
decisions because you are dealing with the immediate. You would
say, ``Well, that is kind of a dumb decision.'' But if you are
in poverty, you don't have the luxury of taking a longer term
view. And so you bring a case manager in, who has a different
vantage point, who can see their skills, who can see their
problem from----
Mr. Newhouse. Yes.
Mr. Raglow.--not get in the canoe with them, but help them
navigate a path to a different outcome using those resources.
Mr. Newhouse. Yes. Thank you very much. Mr. Collins, in
your testimony you discussed the WeCARE program, Wellness
Comprehensive Assessment, Rehabilitation and Employment, which
helps identify disabilities that individuals may have, but also
their abilities.
Mr. Collins. Correct.
Mr. Newhouse. So could you talk a little bit about that, I
want to give you an opportunity to explain that process, and
what it actually means to those people that you are seeking to
help?
Mr. Collins. Sure. Thank you, Congressman. WeCARE is an
interesting program because it is a program that 100 percent of
the people come into do not believe that they can work. That is
how they got there. If they could have worked, they would have
gone to a different program. They showed up at the eligibility
office with a doctor's note, or indicated to the eligibility
specialist that they had some barrier to work.
So immediately they come over to my program, and we put
them through an independent medical assessment. So we take in
consideration the doctor's notes and information that they
provide us, but we come up with an independent functional
capacity outcome, if you will. As you saw in the slides, and
the information that is really noteworthy is that after 10
years of doing this, and after 485,000 incidences of these
kinds of assessments, we keep finding that over \1/2\ of the
people who come in are able to work, but didn't know it, and
that 33 percent can get better physically, their health can
improve and stabilize, and those too can go to work. And that,
quite frankly, a significant minority are then tracked to
Federal disability.
So in our program, all of the questions that are asked in
the assessment are about what you can do, not what you can't
do.
Mr. Newhouse. Yes.
Mr. Collins. And the spirit of the program defines work as
getting well, following through with your assignments, getting
a job, or preparing for a job. So many of our components look
very much like Mr. Samuels's components. We include an
additional element to help guide individuals toward the work
they appear to be good at, we do that through what we call a
diagnostic vocational evaluation, so they better understand
their strengths and weaknesses, that it helps them pick their
own job.
Mr. Newhouse. Great. Excellent. I appreciate that. Well, my
time is running thin, but thank you again for your testimony. I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Lujan Grisham,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank the panel today. I think that most of my colleagues on
this Committee agree it is not only the SNAP benefit, but a
variety of other public benefits that are critical in providing
a leg up in success. I come from a state where we still have
the hungriest children in the country, that is an untenable
situation, and we have a responsibility in this institution, as
well as our private-sector partners, and other public sector
partners, to do something to make sure that we eradicate those
issues, poverty and hunger, in this country forever. But saying
that, I also am from a state that has not recovered from the
Great Recession. And, as you are looking at jobs, whether we
identify that as job growth or a recovery to back where we were
in 2008 in this country, New Mexico is nowhere close. We have
just a little over 3\1/2\ percent of our job growth since 2008,
so we still have one of the hardest hit economies in the
country.
When we talk about these work requirements, and you talk
about the successes in other states, I am very curious about
what the plan is for states that have no jobs for college
students, high school students, folks on public benefits? In
fact, the only job growth in our state was in the oil and gas
industry. And, recently, with the oil and gas prices decline,
that is not true there either. Are there strategies in place to
deal with that reality, so that we don't create a situation
where we are penalizing unnecessarily folks who, without these
benefits, have no other options to feed their families? Anyone
on the panel?
Mr. Collins. Yes, success means that a person gets a job,
and I think that that is a reasonable goal. While it might
seem, as the economy is not favorable in some places, all we
are really trying to do with our participants is get them a job
for their family.
There are many things that can be done to prepare for work,
including simulated work, which we do a lot of, occupational
skills training in high demand occupations, which we do a lot
of as well. And it is always necessary for people to brush up
on their job readiness, and their ability to present themselves
competently to employers. You can imagine internships. There
are a number of viable work activities that can always be done
to help prepare individuals and help them progress.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. And, Mr. Collins, I really appreciate
those points, because notwithstanding work requirements, and
thinking that through, those are skills we have to be providing
to larger sets of the American population, so you had me at
hello. But reducing a benefit by virtue of that investment in
individuals, means I have hungrier children, and I am right
back to that untenable situation that I don't think anyone on
this Committee would support, if that was really the impact.
I am going to go to another aspect, with less than 2
minutes to go, and I appreciate my colleagues, and particularly
the remarks of our Chairman, about what I refer to as the cliff
effect. We have a very real issue here. And I have a
constituent, I know many of us do, a woman in my district, and
I want to just give you the example, because I think that we
need to be clear about this on the record.
If a parent with one child is working 40 hours per week,
earning the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, gets a
raise, and, in Albuquerque, which is the heart of my district,
would be making $8.50 an hour, she is going to receive $208
more per month in salary. That is great. She will lose $683 in
support. This means she doesn't have her housing assistance,
her SNAP benefits, and completely loses child care benefits. So
when you talk, Mr. Samuels in particular, about that folks will
say to you that they would rather go back on benefits and not
work. I disagree with your characterization, that is because
they prefer, and I am overstating your response.
If I am choosing between feeding my child and having a roof
over my child's head, or be homeless, and then try to figure
that out for $208 more a month, which I assure you will not pay
the rent, or buy food, I am going to do the right thing, and I
am going to take care of my child. And so we have to do
something----
The Chairman. The gentlelady's----
Ms. Lujan Grisham.--Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. The gentlelady's----
Ms. Lujan Grisham.--about the cliff effect.
The Chairman.--time has expired. Mr. Lucas, former Chairman
of the Committee, 5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, you
have put together quite an outstanding panel of very impressive
people. I would like to turn my comments to Mr. Raglow and
discuss for a moment some of the case work oriented issues, the
mechanics of how we do this stuff. And, just for reference, I
would note, Mr. Raglow, the four panelists, your colleagues
there, represent, by Oklahoma's definition, big cities, New
York, Washington, Boston. You represent what we might think of
as a big place in Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, and the, as you
said, constituency in western Oklahoma, but in comparison to a
lot of places, relatively small, which, of course, makes the
point that these challenges exist everywhere, not just in one
particular part of the country, but these challenges exist
everywhere.
And the other point I would like to observe, and if you
would tell us, your organization has been engaged in this work
for how many years, how many decades? Catholic Charities in
Oklahoma?
Mr. Raglow. Thank you, Mr. Lucas, and thank you for your
service to the citizens of Oklahoma. Catholic Charities of the
Archdiocese of Oklahoma City began service 103 years ago.
Mr. Lucas. So you have a little bit of a track record. Your
folks understand these issues, and were there not just through
the down times of the present in the oil patch, but the bust of
the 1980s, and the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the whole
gamut. And that depth of knowledge and experience, I very much
appreciate.
So let us talk for a moment about case management, and the
individuals who deliver those services. As you said earlier,
deliver services when they are appropriate, deliver services
when they are wanted, but tell us about that. What percentage
of your case management people are volunteers, what percentage
are professionals? Just give some insights in how Catholic
Charities of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City works these
issues with people.
Mr. Raglow. Thank you. The vast majority of our case
managers are paid staff----
Mr. Lucas. Okay.
Mr. Raglow.--and they are trained, in addition to the
skills that they bring to the agency, we train them on policies
and procedures that have been vetted, enriched by our
experience with the Catholic Charities USA Network, enriched by
our interaction with the Council on Accreditation best
practices across the nation. And we provide that training to
make sure that they are providing appropriate partnering with
the client. We don't need to jump in the canoe with them, as I
mentioned earlier, but to partner with them to take that
journey, and so you have to have appropriate boundaries and
distance.
And, as you mentioned, it is a different scenario in a city
environment, where there may be many providers and resources
that you can partner with and collaborate, whereas, in the
smaller towns, the Enids, the Guymons, the Lawtons, Ardmores,
there is a ministerial alliance very often at the core of the
services that are available, and there are certainly Federal
programs, but maybe not as many partner agencies that you can
work with. And so you have to be sensitive to the environment,
to the communities in which you operate. You need to not come
in and say, ``We have the best idea.'' We want to work with the
community, and its sensibility and sensitivity, as much as we
work with the individual client, and their aims, and
objectives, and skills.
Mr. Lucas. The folks that I refer to in my organization as
case workers, the people who deal with individual issues on a
day to day basis in the district office, I personally consider
it to be an art, not a science. You are born with the skills to
be a caseworker, to work with people, or you are not. That is
just the nature of the thing. Tell me about how you recruit,
encourage, how you find your caseworkers, and how you prepare
them to deal with all these myriad issues.
Mr. Raglow. Well, I will go to a situation for the disaster
response, because we brought together six different agencies.
Some people come to Catholic Charities because of our first
name, and some people won't because of our first name. So some
will go to Salvation Army, some will go to the Red Cross, and
whatever. So we provided overall training across six different
agencies to respond to those folks affected by the storm, but
we did train them on policy and procedures. United Methodist
Church in Oklahoma, the voluntary organizations assisting in
disaster, they all gathered together, and they all contributed
to the wisdom, and the knowledge, and the approach, and the
policies that we would apply to those who were seeking
assistance after those storms. It is a very effective model, so
it can be trained.
Obviously people have an affinity for that work, and some
are called with a little bit more effective skill than others.
But much of it can be trained, but certainly, at an agency
level, you have policy and procedure, you have supervision, you
have oversight, and you have organizational structure behind
the services that we are asking them to provide.
Mr. Lucas. But like your four colleagues, you have the
ability to be nimble, which occasionally government cannot be,
to make adjustments to respond to circumstances.
Mr. Raglow. Absolutely.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mrs.
Kirkpatrick, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member
for having this hearing, and I thank our panelists. This is
such an important topic. I represent the Navajo Nation in
Arizona, where over 75 percent of the population experience
food insecurity. Many of my constituents drive 240 miles to get
fresh fruits and vegetables. And, in fact, this creates a
health crisis because we have exceedingly high levels of
obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. In fact, a young Native
American in my district is nine times more likely to have a
diagnosis of diabetes in his or her lifetime than a non-
Hispanic White.
So my question is for the entire panel, I don't know who
can answer this best, but I really would appreciate your input.
First of all, what experience do you have specifically with
tribal communities, and then what actions need to be taken to
address this crisis?
Mr. Collins. If I may----
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Sure.
Mr. Collins.--I have a lot of experience simply because of
my past work in the Department of Health and Human Services,
the TANF program, we also did Tribal TANF. I also had the good
fortune of going out to the Navajo Nation and teaching job
seeking skills many, many years ago. I would suggest that a
component of the WeCARE model I oversee would work very well,
this component is called wellness or condition management. It
is a case managed plan where the individual goes and gets a
treatment plan from a doctor, brings it back to the case
manager, and together the individual and the case manager work
through this plan to make sure the person is following up on
appointments, taking their medication, doing their exercise. We
consistently find that after individuals complete those plans,
which may last 30, 60, or 90 days, depending, about 65 percent
of them can work with or without an accommodation.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Anyone else?
Dr. Babcock. One of our organizational partners in this
work, this mobility mentoring work that we do, is the Penobscot
Nation, up in the very northern reaches of Maine. And I can
certainly identify with what you are talking about with the
special health challenges of isolated populations, isolated
from the kind of resources that we want to get them connected
to.
I can say that, from our work, that component of health
management well-being is one of the core pillars of what we try
to optimize with our clients, and it is an integral part of
this work of helping clients be work ready, helping them be
able to sustain themselves working, going to school, taking
care of their families. And those health care issues are
definitely exacerbated by stress and poverty----
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Yes.
Dr. Babcock.--so we know there is a direct hand-in-hand
correlation with insecurity of income and food with one's
health challenges and outcomes. And so we have to partner to
help people manage their pathway out of poverty, including
their health, at the same time that we maintain the supports
that are necessary to keep them together until they can make
that pathway secure.
Mr. Samuels. Unfortunately, I don't have any experience
working with this population, but I would love, if you would
have me, to come out to your constituents and learn more about
what help they need.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Well, we will take you up on that. Thank
you.
Mr. Raglow. Oklahoma is blessed with many Native American
Tribes, and when we seek to serve that community, it is very
important that we have a relationship with the Tribal entity as
much as we can, as well as with the individual Tribal member.
Oftentimes they can connect resources that we cannot, and vice
versa. And so relationships matter every bit, and very much in
the Tribal community.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Good point. My time is about to expire,
but I just want to thank you again, and we would love to work
with you. It is a difficult problem to address.
Dr. Babcock. It is.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. One of the things I know the Tribes are
trying to do is bring back local growing of fruits and
vegetables, but our seasons are limited, and it is high desert,
and drought is a problem, you just encounter one thing after
another to address this problem. But thank you, I would love to
work with you more on this, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Austin Scott,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
this is one of those issues where there is more in common than
there is in difference. It is unfortunate that sometimes in
Washington we let emotions drive the train instead of facts,
but thank you all for being here, and for your testimony, and
for what you do. We have heard a lot of great statements,
successes when a person gets a job, dignity of work. Dr.
Babcock, I know you said that there is no one way out, but I
think you would agree that every way out of poverty requires
work.
And we are going to continue, we will have our debates on
whether or not state flexibility and private sector assistance
is better than more Federal control. I certainly believe in the
flexibility in the private sector case management versus
Federal agencies in control. But the problem we have right now
is that the system is set up in a manner that is in direct
contrast of what our goal should be. So the goal should be the
harder you work the more you earn, and the more you have. And
yet our system is set up where the harder you work, the more
you earn, you hit a threshold, and the less you have. And so
the question is how do we fix this?
Most disability contracts in the private sector have what
is called a residual benefit clause. And so, if you become
disabled in your occupation, but you are willing to go back to
work in another occupation, your disability contract would
continue to pay you, but for every additional dollar that you
earn in that other occupation, you might see a reduction in
benefits of 20 percent, or 30 percent, or 40 percent, but you
didn't see a dollar for dollar offset, and it didn't
immediately get cut off. And it seems to me that if we took
that same concept, and we applied it to the current system,
that we could fix a lot of the problems that we have. And I
would just like, if you would, for each of you to speak about
that briefly, and whether or not you think that type of
residual benefit is what it takes to resolve the problem.
Mr. Raglow. Thank you. I do think that not every situation
is the same, as it pertains to Federal benefits, and that the
cliff is a huge problem, but relationships matter, and you
can't have a relationship with a Federal program. You have a
relationship with your instructor, with your neighbor, with
your community, with your school. And so the opportunity that
we have through case management is to build a relationship, and
connect the individual to the community, and the community to
the individual.
And it is not so much a work requirement as a work
opportunity to engage their talents and their skills, which is
individually empowering, and giving them an opportunity to move
forward. But it does need to be flexible, because there are
some people who are doing everything right, and still fall
below the ability to make ends meet. And so it needs to have a
little bit of both components, I think.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And, Mr. Samuels, your
program, STRIVE, is in Georgia, so I am somewhat familiar with
your organization, but would love to hear you speak to that as
well.
Mr. Samuels. Speak to the program in Georgia?
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. No, sir, how do we fix this?
Is it a residual benefit? I mean, right now, the more you earn,
the less you have.
Mr. Samuels. I honestly don't know. What I would want to do
is, if I could get back to you with that, that answer? Does
that work for you?
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Sure, absolutely.
Dr. Babcock. If you are asking me, I believe that work
should pay, and that as people work hard to get ahead, they
should not find themselves suffering economically for doing so,
and that we need to put in place structures that allow for our
safety net's subsidies to be provided in a way that incents
people to work, and supports them when they do.
I think what we also have to understand, however, is that
not all case management is effective case management, and not
all----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. I agree with that.
Dr. Babcock.--the organizations that provide those services
do it well, and we have a paucity of organizations that show
that they can help move families to a place where they can
sustain themselves. And we need to be focused on----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Dr. Babcock, I am down to 30
seconds.
Dr. Babcock.--programs that do that.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. I apologize, but I would like
to hear Mr. Collins speak as well in the last 30 seconds.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Congressman. All welfare is local,
therefore I believe it is a wise principle to allow flexibility
as most of the solutions will also reside at the local level.
Each state, each jurisdiction, should have the flexibility
to devise what they believe is the right mix of program rules
and incentives to help individuals and families transition
smoothly, as well as incentivizing work and retention.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes. Dr. Babcock, I apologize
for cutting you off, but I am down to zero seconds right now.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Davis
from Illinois, 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
panelists. It is actually great to follow my colleague, Mr.
Scott, and Ms. Lujan Grisham, who brought up a great example of
why we are here. Because when we have a system set up in place
that, by describing her constituent, doesn't incentivize
somebody to get off of government programs, then we need to
know, from those who work within those programs on a daily
basis, how do we fix them? I come from Illinois. Illinois was
chosen as one of the ten states to receive a grant to start a
pilot program under SNAP for job training and economic
development. Similar to the work that many of you are doing. I
would hope that some of your expertise can come to Illinois to
talk about those successes too.
I have a list of questions, but I am probably going to make
my staff crazy and go away from them right now, because you are
here telling us what is so successful about each of your
organizations, how you are working with individuals who are
utilizing government programs, and how you are moving them off,
in spite of the limitations that Ms. Lujan Grisham talked about
for her constituent. So what are you doing right, and what can
we do to fix the problems that we have with our institutional
programs, and how do we make them work better? If you could do
what we do, and fix this, tell me, each of you, what you would
do simply to make that first step? We will start, actually, let
us start down on this end, since Mr. Scott was the other way.
Mr. Collins?
Mr. Collins. Sure. I would start by designing a set of
program rules that allowed for the maximum flexibility at the
local level. As the government, I would establish a very clear
expectation of accountability with very high standards for
outcomes and quality. The programs at the local level should be
flexible. They should be able to make decisions around how they
put these interventions together. There are many, many great
providers. There are many opportunities to do that. I would
also suggest that performance-based payments in that arena
might also help to spur some additional outcomes.
Mr. Davis. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Babcock?
Dr. Babcock. I would be looking to try to set up subsidy
programs in a way that supports work, and supports income gains
in work. And I would also be looking to try to create
programmatic frameworks in which we are working with families
to plot paths to family sustaining jobs, where they can
envision that future where they will be earning enough to
support their family.
Because what we know is, when we look at a problem just
within the scope of today, and what the tradeoffs are that are
happening today, in terms of income gain and subsidy loss, that
people will make decisions based on today. But if it is done
within a context of increasing earnings to a point that you are
self-sustaining, the decisions might be made differently, and
so we have to have case management, or processes that allow for
that kind of future gain that can be seen.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Dr. Babcock. Mr. Samuels?
Mr. Samuels. Okay. How I would fix the problem is just look
at what is working. For us, what is working is our really good
case management program, our job placement program, and our
supporter services. And then figure out what else individuals
need in order to be self-sufficient.
Mr. Davis. Okay. Mr. Raglow?
Mr. Raglow. Thank you. I would focus on principles more
than policies. And we can't just talk about the need on one
side, and the challenges on the other. It is the rights of the
individual, and the rights, and our solidarity of being with
those who are in need, but also the responsibilities that they
have, and that we have to each other. So it is rights and
responsibilities. It is work for the common good, we have an
obligation to take care of the poor in our midst today, but we
have an obligation to do it with today's resources, and not
those of my son, who is sitting here beside me. We have to make
sure we are doing it with today's resources, and not his
resources.
And so there is a balance between the amount of resources
that are brought to bear, and the engagement that we have with
the individual. And there has to be a balance, as was mentioned
earlier, at the local level is best.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. What is your son's name?
Mr. Raglow. Thomas.
Mr. Davis. Thomas? How old are you, Thomas? Thanks for
coming to Washington, D.C. I am just using the last of my time,
down to 3 seconds. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Those are Mr.
Lucas's constituents, not yours, Davis.
Mr. Davis. We will apologize now.
The Chairman. Mr. Allen, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. This has been
very enlightening. And, of course, we all want solutions, and,
Mr. Samuels, I congratulate you. You are one of my new heroes.
I have had several that have been in hearings here, but I
realize the courage it takes to say, hey, I have to change
things. And I appreciate where you have come from, and where
you are, and I congratulate you on that. And I will feel like
my role as a Member of the United States Congress will be
complete when every American has that same story.
I have said this for years, that the intact American family
is the greatest economic engine ever created. We haven't talked
about the family unit a whole lot here, and I realize that the
statistics are out there about the poverty rate is much higher
because of the breakup of the family. I would like your input
on that, and, obviously, what we can do here to promote the
family. And I will just start, Mr. Raglow, at this end, and if
you could--or your son may want to address that question.
Mr. Raglow. Every program at Catholic Charities is centered
on a family strengthening. Whether that is immigration legal
services, migration and refugee services, disaster assistance,
they are all focused on the family, because that is the sub-
unit from which society springs, and so we need to strengthen
that. Resources are a part of that problem.
The challenges that were mentioned by other speakers here
today in many cases stem from the dissolution of the family,
and the weakening of the family. And so, in all that Catholic
Charities does, we strive to strengthen the family unit,
because that is the basic element. And resources are a part,
but they are not sufficient.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Samuels?
Mr. Samuels. Well, at STRIVE DC, less than 20 percent of
our clients have intact families. One of the things we have
been trying to do over the years is connect the families.
Because once the families are connected, mom and dad are
married, kids end up being successful, the dog ends up being
successful. But----
Mr. Allen. Everybody is happy, right?
Mr. Samuels. Everybody is happy. And at the end of the day,
that is what we are striving for, to make everyone happy.
Dr. Babcock. And one of the things that we know, from the
data around marriage, is that not only is the intact family a
good economic engine for growth for our society, but also that
the rates of solid family formation are increased with the
increase of earnings that we have. It is a directly correlated
thing.
And the interesting thing, Congressman, is that we have
found that, with our 98 percent low income, single parent
families, that as their incomes gain, as they create this
economic process for themselves, that their relationships gain
as well. We actually have reuniting of family members in the
process, and increased rates of two-parent household formation,
stable household formation, and marriage as well. It has been
an interesting byproduct, and not one that we expected.
Mr. Allen. That is wonderful. Mr. Collins?
Mr. Collins. Yes. Real quickly, I am familiar with a
program that actually does case management with the family.
That is not something that we do in my particular program, but
Housing and Urban Development--HUD, through various public
housing authorities, has a component, where they case manage
the family. The child has to go to school, they can't be
truant, they can't get kicked out, otherwise the family is
removed from the program. What I like about the program,
though, is it incentivizes work.
Mr. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Collins. Everyone has to participate in the plan. For
every dollar gained through employment from any of the work-
eligible family members, the amount gained is placed in an
interest-bearing savings account that continues to grow for up
to 5 years. The idea is to move this family through so they
might use the money as a down payment on a home of their own,
or start a new business or what have you. But the idea of case
managing the family is a unique one. It is not necessarily the
way we do business.
Mr. Allen. Right. Well, I think that what we want to strive
for is for these programs to give an incentive to promote the
family, rather than drive the family apart. Thank you very much
for your time here this morning.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Neugebauer, 5
minutes.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing. One of the common things that we have
heard from both the panelists and the Members is this word
incentive. And I was just looking here, in 1969 there was 2.8
million people on food stamps. In 1980, 21 million people on
food stamps. 1990, only 20 million people. In 2014, there are
46 million people on food stamps. The question is, obviously
the way we are doing things now doesn't seem to be moving, or
moving in the right direction, or working. Mr. Raglow, just for
my own edification, how are you compensated for the work that
you do with potential food stamp recipients?
Mr. Raglow. Catholic Charities relies largely on our local
community and parish support for the work that we do. We do get
Federal revenue for our migration and refugee services
programs, and that constitutes about 12 percent of our roughly
$5 million budget. But the rest of that budget is from local
support.
Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Samuels, your program, how are you
compensated?
Mr. Samuels. Okay. So, for the last 2 years STRIVE DC has
received government funding, working with juvenile offenders
and food stamp recipients. A lot of our funding in the past has
come from foundations and individual donors.
Mr. Neugebauer. Yes, because the thing that, for me, and if
we are going to talk about incentive, everybody in the food
chain, and no pun intended here, but everybody in the food
chain has to have some incentive for us to do better. Because
we owe it to your son, we owe it to my grandchildren, to do
this cost-effectively, but also do it appropriately. And I
don't think anybody in Congress wants people that are
desperately in need, and cannot help themselves. We don't want
to leave them, and let them fall through the cracks.
But the fact that we have seen such a rapid growth in this
program, I guess the question I have is are there better
models, where, one, we can incentivize both the people that are
on food stamps to do better, but also build incentives into the
system, so that, when we start talking about resources, if you
have a program, and you are succeeding, and you are
transferring more people, integrating them, and moving them out
of the system, that you are able to resource your organization
appropriately. And, at the same time, we leave a little
dividend for the taxpayers.
And so I guess my final question is where in the system do
you see areas where there are inefficiencies that we could look
at that we could make the system better, and incentivize that
behavior? And, remember, incentives are two things. Sometimes
you can motivate somebody to do something by offering them
something, and sometimes you can motivate somebody by taking
something away from them.
Mr. Collins. Congressman, my program is unique in that the
portfolio that I oversee, some of my contracts are 100 percent
performance-based. The WeCARE program itself covers the cost
for case management, but, quite frankly, if I don't deliver on
placements and retentions, I can't make up the rest of the
money. So we have a built-in incentive in the way the contract
is modeled. Which, again, is just an outgrowth of local
flexibility.
Mr. Neugebauer. Okay.
Dr. Babcock. The families that we work with have a 44
percent earned income gain within the first year, and their tax
payments go up by 35 percent. We know, from a return on
investment analysis, that the investments we are making in
these families are cost-effective for the public dollar, and
decrease subsidies, and increase tax payments. You are right in
saying that we have to expect these interventions to prove
their worth, and we have to work with families in a way that is
going to be able to create that public value for the
interventions that we have. I believe ours are doing so.
Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Raglow?
Mr. Raglow. We work with our clients, not all of which will
be independent and self-sufficient, so there are more than one
category of client. But where we can, we work with the clients
on a path they determine, based on their desire, their
objectives, their talents, and their skills, and their
training. We connect them with those resources so that they can
take steps on the path. We may not get them to the final
destination, but we will get them further along it.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mrs.
Walorski, 5 minutes.
Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to all of you,
I am so grateful that you are here, and I can tell you that,
since the beginning of this Congressional period, I am Chairing
the Subcommittee on Nutrition, which looks at this whole SNAP
program. And, since January, we have been looking at this
holistic view of case management. It is so refreshing for me to
sit here, because I do believe that partnering with other
organizations that are on the front line, bringing in 501s, and
bringing in programs that really are addressing more than just
the need of just simply food, or nutritious food, but actually
talking about the things that you are all sitting here talking
about. You are the experts. One the things that historically
has gone on inside this Congress is, you are the experts, we
are the funders, and the two have never really met, connected,
to find out what is working, and let us implement that, so
everybody wins in this country, the taxpayer and those that are
in a vulnerable position.
And I think that we have seen, and now it is such a breath
of fresh air to hear from you, the importance of case
management. Because one of the things we talked about a couple
of months ago in this Committee was the issue of what is
success? How does the government rate success in a program that
is just all government driven? And it is just literally you
plug into a formula, and if you qualify for the formula--and
what else can the government do well, should the government do,
but more importantly, what happens to the vulnerable American
people that are literally just putting in a card and receiving
X for Y, and there is no other place anyplace else to get help
with job skills, with, in some cases, social work management.
In some cases domestic abuse, with single moms with kids, and
the things that go on.
So one of the things I am pleased to hear from you, from
all of you, is the issue of why case management is important,
and the issue of engaging with people. I don't think we will
ever be successful without engaging locally, and, to your
point, Mr. Collins, maximum flexibility at a local level.
Definitely looking for the places that produce the best
success, and success rated not just in how many people come off
the program, but the people that are really taken care of, and
moved on to success, and all boats rise when the tide rises.
So, Mr. Raglow, just quickly to you, what is the key--and I
know you are all different organizations, but what do you find
is the key in getting people to actually engage with your
organization?
Mr. Raglow. Thank you. It is different across 16 programs,
but, as one example, our Sanctuary Women's Development Center,
which serves homeless women and women with children, again,
couch surfing, car homeless, street homeless, the initial
engagement is at a place where they can get a shower, get
laundry done, engage on the Internet to do job resumes and stay
connected with family and friends. We don't require them to be
in case management. We offer case management.
And out of 600 women and children that come to us each
month, we have about 150 that are in case management, and about
ten a month that are getting into permanent housing, and we
count it successful only after they have been in housing 6
months or longer. But it is that initial phase of relationship,
which is why, and only why, I push back on the requirement for
a work requirement. I don't want that to be an obstacle to them
coming to us. But over time, in our rent and utility
assistance, if they get rent and utility assistance, and they
don't engage in our family HOPE program, then we don't continue
to just cut checks for rent and utility assistance. So there is
a little bit of a back and forth, and a relationship that is
built from that initial engagement.
Mrs. Walorski. And, Mr. Collins, just quickly, do you----
Mr. Collins. Yes.
Mrs. Walorski.--have a comment on that?
Mr. Collins. Four things I just noted. We do outreach, so
we do pre-calls to make sure the people come in. We follow up
to make sure that they get what they need. If we have to do
some sort of troubleshooting over the phone to get them
present, we will do that. We provide reasonable accommodations
for people. We do wellness follow-up by phone so our
participants can decide to change the appointment type from
face to face to a phone appointment. As mentioned on occasion
even if we do pre-calls, to let people know that they have an
appointment coming up, it might just be in some cases we will
actually do a home visit. All of these have been great tools
for us.
Mrs. Walorski. Just let me interrupt you really quickly, I
only have 30 seconds left, but do you see, by and large, when
folks come in and engage in this program, and I guess to you,
Mr. Raglow, as well, you said some people don't want case
management. Some people just literally are going to come in,
and they are going to go by the program. But a large
percentage, 150 out of 600 is a large percentage, of people
that actually want to move through a program and get back on
their feet.
Do you think right up front a work requirement, and even if
it is a basic, minimal work requirement, do you think that
turns people off into getting involved in something like case
management, or do you think that it is a barrier for people to
actually want to be involved in case management because they
are afraid somebody is going to have to say, you are going to
have to go to work, or do you think that, by and large, the
larger percentage of people come in with the attitude that
says, maybe they can help me get out of this mess?
Mr. Collins. The work requirement is the decision point----
Mrs. Walorski. Yes.
Mr. Collins.--for everybody. So, without it, it is hard to
make the decision. The job doesn't have to be perfect, nor does
the requirement, but the fact that the requirement exists
allows us to engage with someone and determine how best to help
them. So you have to have that framework, in my opinion.
Mrs. Walorski. I appreciate it. Thanks----
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Ms.
Plaskett, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to
everyone. Mr. Collins, you were talking about the work
requirement, or any of the witnesses, what happens when you are
in a locale or a location where the unemployment rate is so
high that there may not be work available?
Mr. Collins. That brings to mind a perfect example of a
state that had that challenge prior to TANF. It was the State
of Wyoming that I believe had about 10,000 participants on
public assistance that today probably has less than 150. And
the interesting thing about that I am sure that people would
say that one of the barriers was that they couldn't go to work
because they didn't have any transportation. Well, the truth is
that is a problem for everybody in the State of Wyoming. Again,
with the flexibility to address the problem with a local
solution, Wyoming was able to figure hour the pathway forward
to employment for many of the people they serve on their public
assistance caseloads.
Ms. Plaskett. So you talked about transportation, and I am
talking about jobs. This was brought up from the gentlewoman
from New Mexico earlier, but I live in a location where we have
had a 13 to 15 percent unemployment rate. That is not a matter
of people not being able to find transportation. That is a
matter of, when they get to the location--and Virgin Islanders
will walk anywhere--we are not that big--so they will walk into
your office, and the determination is made that they need to
have a job, to be part of the program. What happens to those
people who are actively looking for work and cannot find that?
Dr. Babcock, what happens in those instances?
Dr. Babcock. Well, I guess what I would say is that the
ability to case manage, the ability to engage with people to
help themselves move out of poverty is not filling someone's
stomach, and it is not putting a roof over somebody's head, and
it is not helping them deal with the immediate needs that they
have for survival, and we have to differentiate between the
two.
Ms. Plaskett. Yes.
Dr. Babcock. The need for basic requirements of living have
to be supported in some way in order for people to actually get
to the place that they can listen to and----
Ms. Plaskett. And what do you think----
Dr. Babcock.--work with a case----
Ms. Plaskett.--those----
Dr. Babcock.--manager.
Ms. Plaskett. And what do you think those basic
requirements are? What, in your estimation----
Dr. Babcock. Our----
Ms. Plaskett.--in your work has found?
Dr. Babcock. Our experience has been, with the families
that we work with, as I said, 1,400 individuals a year, and we
have no requirements for work, and yet we get 78 percent work
rates out of the families that we work with, which is entirely
voluntary. We have no experience that work requirements are
necessary in order to engage families. What we have is an
experience of a basic platform of safety being necessary,
safety and basic living being necessary, and then a partnership
with someone who can help a family get the toehold they need to
move ahead.
Ms. Plaskett. Well, my belief is that part of that safety
net is knowing that your children are going to eat----
Dr. Babcock. Exactly.
Ms. Plaskett.--and even if you don't have children, if you
have food in your stomach, then you can be more effective in
looking for a job for yourself.
Dr. Babcock. That is exactly right.
Ms. Plaskett. And I think that that is a basic requirement
that we need to think about. And while it is very great for us
to think that we need to wean those individuals off of the
program so that they can be self-sufficient, I don't believe
that there are that many people out there who want to remain on
the back of the government, that individuals want to be able to
do that.
And my concern is that we tie these programs to jobs, and
in those areas of America where there are no jobs, there are
still going to be people, then, who are hungry because they are
not able to fulfill that requirement that we are putting on
them.
Dr. Babcock. Or what we find in our partner states is that
where job requirements are in place, there is also in place
documentation requirements for proof that that job is being
sought. And the time required, and the documentation required
to prove that one is in compliance takes away from the time
that one would be spending actually seeking those jobs, or
seeking the skills that would get them into the job that can
sustain the family as a whole.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Mr. Raglow, we have, in the Virgin
Islands, very strong work with Catholic Charities. They do a
lot of work down there. And aside from feeding, and being a
part of food programs and nutrition programs, it is providing
work incentives to try and re-skill people so that they are
able to find new jobs. Can you talk about how those programs
work together?
Mr. Raglow. Absolutely. The thing that you mentioned
earlier, about the work requirement, the reason that I am
opposed to a work requirement is that I don't want to miss the
opportunity to engage in a relationship. But once I have that
relationship, I want to work with these clients. I worked in
southern Nevada, in Las Vegas, at the height of the Great
Recession----
Ms. Plaskett. Yes.
Mr. Raglow.--and we restructured a program, criteria-based,
four phase, time bound, that got 16 percent each quarter of the
men that came to us from the streets employment, because the
first job isn't the last job. So it can be done by working with
the client.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Thank you----
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has----
Ms. Plaskett.--Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman.--expired. Mr. Thompson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for my tardiness to
this hearing, but I really wanted to be here to be able to ask
some questions of the panel. Thank you for your written
testimony, and thank you for what each of you do, and those you
are representing do in this issue. I mean, we are talking about
what I prefer to be called programs of opportunity. And
recognizing, with the last questioning that went on, there are
some folks that, no matter what we do, unfortunately, by
whatever circumstances, they are kind of going to be in that
mode.
I spent my entire career working with people who had severe
disabilities, and these folks, I mean, you couldn't even
imagine the level of disability some of these individuals had,
but they all wanted that opportunity. They wanted to be able to
be a part of the fabric of the community. They wanted to be
productive. They wanted to learn. They wanted to be employed.
And so we need the safety net element, certainly, but more than
anything else we need to make sure that, as we do these
programs, we make them programs of opportunity, to help people
grow out of needing that safety net.
Mr. Raglow, with Catholic Charities, what is the value of
community organizations? In our last full Committee hearing on
SNAP we heard from various organizations that work within their
communities to engage with individuals who have fallen on hard
times to help them get back on their feet. I worked with a
number--I was a member of the Private Industry Council, Center
County, that helped people with workforce development. My area
Lions Club, we worked with making sure that people had food,
and actually, a lot of our members actually go out and deliver
the food to those who have limited transportation. It is a very
rural area. Can you elaborate on the value of these types of
community organizations, what that adds to helping individuals
reach self-sufficiency, and what makes your organization
unique?
Mr. Raglow. Thank you for the question. And we believe, and
I appreciated your earlier comments about the value of work. I
mean, the dignity of work is a gift itself, and allowing people
to engage in that affirms them as an individual.
As community organizations, I don't want to compete with
organizations that do work better than I do. I want to partner
with them. I want to collaborate with them. There are Southern
Baptist Disaster Relief. There are none better at removing
debris. Why would I compete with that? But I do long term
recovery case management, and they don't. And working together,
we better serve the community. And, as I mentioned to a
previous questioner, there are some people that don't want to
see Catholic Charities because of our first name, and others
that don't want to go to the Salvation Army for that name. So
we, together, will hit more people, and work together, and
serve the community more effectively.
Catholic Charities serves because we are Catholic, not
because our clients are Catholic, and they don't need to become
Catholic in order to get services. We serve based on need, not
on creed. We are proud of who we are, and how we operate, and
how we serve, but we very much work with the government. Now,
again, I don't have a lot of contracts with the Federal
Government, but all of my clients benefit from government
programs of one sort or another. So we work with the
government, we work with our partner agencies in the town, and
we work in small communities, as well as in the major city of
Oklahoma City.
Mr. Thompson. And why the heavy reliance on private
funding, and are there advantages, disadvantages to that?
Mr. Raglow. I think the reliance on private funding is a
gift to us at Catholic Charities. Organizations tend to be like
sunflowers, we look at the source of our light. And I think
that having the ability to operate as a Catholic agency, as
opposed to a government extension, is very valuable to those we
serve, and to those that support us.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Samuels, your organization, obviously
STRIVE DC, relies, I believe, on a lot of private funding. Can
you speak to advantages, disadvantages of that?
Mr. Samuels. Well, over the last 2 years we have had a lot
of government funding. Almost 80 percent of our funding was
government. Previously we have received private funding. The
benefits of private funding is easy. We are able to do what it
is we want to do with that money. With a lot of government
money, there are a lot of parameters that you have to follow in
order to get those----
Mr. Thompson. Can you speak to some of those----
Mr. Samuels. So, for instance----
Mr. Thompson.--attached?
Mr. Samuels. This is probably the wrong space to talk about
it, but I have been working right now with the District
Government with the food stamp for employment program. We have
had an invoice--we have been working, actually, with them since
December. We have invoiced for three payments, and I haven't
received a payment yet. That is one of the problems with small
nonprofits working with the government agencies, they hold
money. And as a small nonprofit, if I can't pay my staff, what
happens to my clients? And my clients are the most important
things to me.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
I want to thank our panelists for being here today. First off,
participating in saving the world in 5 minute slots. It is
frustrating, but it is our system.
Mr. Collins, I was particularly impressed with your
comments about low expectations versus high expectations, that
you if set the bar higher for folks, they strive to meet those.
And, Mr. Samuels, you had a similar comment, referenced strict
standards that you make your clients adhere to. Mr. Raglow and
Dr. Babcock, you both talked very eloquently about the case
management, the values there, as did the others as well.
The solution for the cliff is a struggle for all of us. It
is not rocket science. We have just discovered that benefit
cliff this morning. The case managers are the thin neck of the
funnel. We in the Federal Government, state governments, and a
lot of folks are at the top of that funnel, and we pour stuff
in. In this environment, we develop these programs across a
variety of committees, which makes the solutions even more
difficult, because we all jealously guard our piece of that
slice.
We assume housing is the only problem, so put the housing
in the funnel. We assume child care is the issue, and throw a
bunch of child care. If SNAP is the issue, we through SNAP into
the funnel, and it all comes down to your case managers. And we
have to do a better job. We spend a lot of money across this
government on all these programs. We need to demand more of
ourselves to get this right. It is a daunting task.
I had a meeting with folks yesterday supportive of the SNAP
program that are terrified that this whole endeavor, the past,
present, future of SNAP is some subversive attempt to cut the
program, or gut the program. Nothing could be further from the
truth. We wouldn't have asked you here today to ask for your
solutions and your insights if that were the case. Young Thomas
back there has an awful lot of debt stacked up on him. We ought
to be trying to limit that as well.
So there are a lot of competing tensions in this issue. All
of us have a heart--most of us have a heart--for the poor.
Christ said the poor you will have with you always. And that is
not to tell us that we shouldn't be doing our jobs, but in much
of this instance we have asked the Federal Government, the
Federal taxpayer, to do things that families and local
communities are far better suited, far more nimble at taking
care of business in that regard. This government is ill suited
to do what you do, to try to even remotely do it. We put one
size fits all programs in place. It doesn't work in Detroit,
doesn't necessarily work in Oklahoma City, doesn't necessarily
work anywhere. But you are so much more nimble. The innovation
that you bring to the table is very appreciated.
My colleagues and I have a lot of work to do across a lot
of committees, not just the ones here on the Agriculture
Committee. Finding the solution for that benefit cliff is going
to be key, because all families are going to operate in their
own best self-interest. And if the cliff requires them to turn
down hours of work, or not do jobs that make a little bit more
money because, in their own self-interest, it hurts them there,
we can't criticize those folks because of that. We just have to
figure out a way so that they are not challenged with that
moral dilemma of losing the dignity of work, of losing the
dignity of taking care of themselves because of the way we have
stuff structured. We need to fix that, as opposed to blaming
them for operating in their own self-interest.
So we are all in this together, and any other insights or
thoughts you have in this regard would be very appreciated by
the Committee. And, with that, under the rules of the
Committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open for
10 calendar days to receive additional material and
supplemental written responses from the witnesses to any
question posed by a Member. This hearing of the Committee of
Agriculture is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina; on Behalf of Clyde W. Fitzgerald, Jr., Executive
Director, Second Harvest Food Bank of Northwest NC
June 10, 2015
Hon. Alma S. Adams,
Member of Congress,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Congresswoman Adams,
Thanks very much for your invitation to provide input on the
economic challenges faced by people served by the Second Harvest Food
Bank of Northwest NC for your use in the House Agriculture Committee
hearing this week.
In spite of an improving national economy, there is a sustained,
significant and still growing need for food assistance across our food
bank's 18 county service area. Over the past 12 months, 62% of our
partner programs report meaningful increases in the number of requests
for food assistance.
Our network currently provides over 300,000 individuals with the
food and hope they so desperately need. This is up from 135,000 in
2009. Unemployment and significant underemployment are the driving
forces in this tremendous increase. The demise of our region's
manufacturing sector has displaced tens of thousands of our neighbors
through no fault of their own. These people generally have no chance to
participate in the growth of the high-tech sector, as 32% of adult
recipients of food assistance in our region have less than a high
school degree versus only 14% of adults nationally.
We truly serve the working poor . . . as the majority of those we
serve have at least one job in their household . . . and many hold
several jobs trying to make ends meet. Unfortunately, about 60% of
those jobs are part-time, meaning fewer hours, lower rates of pay and
no health care coverage.
We also serve the most vulnerable of our region's citizens, as
fully \1/3\ of those we serve are children and 10% are seniors.
The economic challenges faced by those we serve are staggering!
Consider that 78% of our hungry neighbors are from households living at
or below the poverty level, with 57% of these households having monthly
incomes of $1,000 or less.
The people we serve have to make difficult choices and trade-offs
to keep food on the table. 84% of households report purchasing the
cheapest food available to provide a quantity of food, even though they
know this isn't a healthy option. 73% choose between food and paying
for utilities, with 30% making the choice every month. 72% choose
between food and paying for medicine/medical care, with 31% making the
choice every month. 72% choose between food and paying for
transportation, with 31% making the choice every month. 64% choose
between food and paying for housing, with 31% making the choice every
month. It truly breaks my heart when a parent tells me that their tough
decision that day is which of their children will eat because they
don't have enough food to feed the entire family every day. I'm deeply
saddened when a child tells me that they're not having a good day
because it's not their day to eat. No child--certainly not one anywhere
in America--should ever have to say it's not their day to eat! Our
children deserve better and America can do better!
As you know, the Food Research and Action Center's (FRAC) April
2015 report on food hardship among the general population named North
Carolina as the 8th worst of the 50 states. The Greensboro-High Point
MSA (part of your 12th district) was ranked No. 1 worst in the nation
regarding the percentage of the total population that suffers food
hardship. This area was the No. 2 worst in the previous report. FRAC
also reports that the Winston-Salem MSA (also part of the 12th
district) is the worst metropolitan area in the country regarding the
percentage of households with children that suffer food hardship
(34.8%). The problem of hunger is quite severe and it continues in
spite of significant actions to address the issue. Additionally,
Feeding America's 2015 Map the Meal Gap Study reflects that NC's 12th
District is the worst in our state for food insecurity among both the
general population and children and is among the worst ten
Congressional districts in the country.
Dr. Adams, the statistics about hunger in our region are simply
unacceptable. Our neighbors are suffering and they need our continued
assistance in their struggle for the bare basics in life. The mission
of Second Harvest Food Bank of Northwest NC is to provide food and hope
to the many who, unfortunately, have far too little of both.
Thank you for your passionate and long-term engagement in working
toward solutions to the problem of hunger. Your recently announced
Adams Hunger Initiative has been widely publicized in our region. We
deeply appreciate your much-needed leadership in our region and on a
national basis.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Clyde W. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
Executive Director.
Submitted Questions
Response from Patrick J. Raglow, Executive Director, Catholic Charities
of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City
Question Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Question. Ms. Mr. Raglow, many under-served areas or communities
with high poverty rates do not have access to good-paying jobs that
would allow an individual to eventually earn enough income to no longer
need to participate in the SNAP program. How would you recommend
incentivizing SNAP participants to find work when many of the available
jobs in are part-time or do not improve their economic mobility?
Answer. Representative Adams, thank you for the excellent question
and this opportunity to respond. My primary response is to repeat my
earlier statement that we should seek work not so much as a requirement
but rather as an opportunity, one which engages individual talents in
ways that both acknowledge and confer self-worth. Franklin D. Roosevelt
is quoted on the monument to his memory that ``more important than the
material gains will be the moral and spiritual value of such work.''
With that as premise, I submit that whether or not the work in which
they might engage earns sufficient income to make recipients no longer
eligible for SNAP is not the only objective. Participating in work is a
means to participate in society, and the value of work has an intrinsic
value beyond earned pay. Further, participation in the workforce allows
opportunity for growth in the workforce--quite often the first job in
which one is hired is not their last job, for job performance and
history often open doors previously unavailable. As for incentivizing
SNAP recipients to engage in work, my recommendation is not to create a
new SNAP-based work program. Rather, I would recommend that SNAP
benefits be linked at the local level, through case management, to
already existing public or private sector work programs or ideally to
work itself.