[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF
ELIMINATING BROAD-BASED CATEGORICAL
ELIGIBILITY FOR SNAP HOUSEHOLDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION, OVERSIGHT, AND DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 20, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-12
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-928 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Ranking
JIM COSTA, California Minority Member
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
FILEMON VELA, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands Arkansas
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
Vice Chair VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia DOUG LaMALFA, California
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York TED S. YOHO, Florida
TJ COX, California RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MIKE BOST, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOSH HARDER, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
KIM SCHRIER, Washington JAMES COMER, Kentucky
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DON BACON, Nebraska
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa
______
Anne Simmons, Staff Director
Matthew S. Schertz, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio, Chair
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota,
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina Ranking Minority Member
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
KIM SCHRIER, Washington RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey TED S. YOHO, Florida
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida DON BACON, Nebraska
JIMMY PANETTA, California JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
Jasmine Dickerson, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 6
Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from Ohio,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Johnson, Hon. Dusty, a Representative in Congress from South
Dakota, opening statement...................................... 4
Submitted article............................................ 107
Submitted report............................................. 109
Witnesses
Barnes, Hon. Mandela, Lieutenant Governor, State of Wisconsin,
Madison, WI.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Supplementary material....................................... 114
Davis, Ph.D., John, Executive Director, Mississippi Department of
Human Services, Brookhaven, MS................................. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Davis, J.D., Lisa, Senior Vice President, No Kid Hungry Campaign,
Share Our Strength, Washington, D.C............................ 67
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Submitted question........................................... 115
Waxman, M.P.P., Ph.D., Elaine, Senior Fellow, Income and Benefits
Policy Center, Urban Institute, Washington, D.C................ 75
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Submitted questions.......................................... 116
THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF
ELIMINATING BROAD-BASED CATEGORICAL.
ELIGIBILITY FOR SNAP HOUSEHOLDS
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department
Operations,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Marcia L.
Fudge [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Fudge, McGovern, Adams,
Hayes, Schrier, Van Drew, Lawson, Johnson, Davis, Yoho, Bacon,
Hagedorn, and Conaway (ex officio).
Staff present: Kellie Adesina, Jasmine Dickerson, Alison
Titus, Bart Fischer, Patricia Straughn, Jennifer Tiller, Dana
Sandman, and Jennifer Yezak.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCIA L. FUDGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OHIO
The Chair. Good afternoon. This hearing of the Subcommittee
on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations, entitled
The Potential Implications of Eliminating Broad-Based
Categorical Eligibility for SNAP Households, will come to
order.
Let me begin with my statement.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the impact of
any potential action by the Administration to eliminate or
dramatically restrict the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program's use of categorical eligibility, or cat-el. Cat-el is
a longstanding bipartisan policy that helps streamline the
administration of social service programs for states.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, eliminating
broad-based cat-el would mean 400,000 eligible households would
lose SNAP benefits. An estimated 265,000 eligible children
would lose direct access to free school meals.
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time in recent memory
that changes to cat-el have been offered by our Republican
colleagues. A similar proposal was included in the House-passed
2014 Farm Bill, and, again, the same attempt was made during
last year's farm bill negotiations. In both cases, Congress
debated the issue, and the proposals were ultimately excluded
from the final conference agreements.
I believe these ill-conceived attempts to eliminate broad-
based cat-el were unsuccessful, in part, because cat-el is a
state option that is widely used. Forty-three states and
territories, including many with Republican Governors, use
broad-based categorical eligibility. These states rely on cat-
el for its flexibility to provide critical assistance to those
in their respective states in need of a hand up and to make
ends meet.
Cat-el enables states to better meet the needs of
hardworking families by matching gross income qualifications
with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF
program, and SNAP.
As I have said previously, Republicans love talking about
states' rights, providing states flexibility, and handing over
to the states the administration of Federal safety net
programs, but when it comes to putting that rhetoric into
practice for SNAP, they want something very different, this,
despite decades of proof that cat-el provides states the
flexibility they need and want to better serve vulnerable
households. Eliminating cat-el would increase the burden on
states while providing no additional resources for the extra
paperwork and personnel. It is just another unfunded mandate
for the states. It seems Republicans only like to promise
states' rights when it means cutting off access to benefits and
weakening the social safety net.
At the same time, the Administration is working to restrict
states' use of cat-el, the USDA issued guidance encouraging
SNAP states to adopt flexibilities to pursue child support
orders, a widely unpopular and sparsely used state option with
high associated administrative costs. The party of states'
rights seems more interested in a one-size-fits-all approach
based solely on conservative ideology.
They continue to criticize the program from on high. They
talk about the dignity of work and the cycle of poverty using
pseudo-academic data from armchair think tanks. And they ignore
already-strict work requirements in statute to paint a
dishonest picture of greedy, shiftless welfare sponges. At
every turn, Republicans invoke the welfare reform of President
Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Well, we have news for you: It was
Clinton and then-Speaker Newt Gingrich who established cat-el
as the law of the land, a bipartisan, state-centered approach.
The Administration's Fiscal Year 2020 budget forewarned us
of potential changes to cat-el, so it is no surprise that there
is a related pending rule in USDA's regulatory agenda. Now here
we are again with my Republican colleagues looking to the White
House to accomplish what they could not: dramatically change
cat-el.
Again I ask, what do Congressional Republicans and this
Administration have against poor people? I have asked that
question in past hearings on this issue, across multiple
Congresses.
I am willing and eager to engage my Republican colleagues
in a conversation about how to make this program more effective
and accessible to hungry Americans so long as that conversation
does not start with the same tired attempts to reduce the SNAP
rolls. That is not a conversation that I am willing to have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fudge follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, a Representative in
Congress from Ohio
Thank you for joining us today.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the impact of any
potential action by the Administration to eliminate or dramatically
restrict the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's use of
categorical eligibility (cat-el). Cat-el is a longstanding bipartisan
policy that helps streamline the administration of social service
programs for states.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) eliminating
broad-based cat-el would mean 400,000 eligible households would lose
SNAP benefits. An estimated 265,000 eligible children would lose direct
access to free school meals.
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time in recent memory that
changes to cat-el have been offered by our Republican colleagues.
A similar proposal was included in the House-passed 2014 Farm Bill
and again, the same attempt was made during last year's farm bill
negotiations.
In both cases, Congress debated the issue and the proposals were
ultimately excluded from the final conference agreements.
I believe these ill-conceived attempts to eliminate broad-based
cat-el were unsuccessful, in part, because cat-el is a state option
that is widely used.
Forty-three (43) states and territories--including many with
Republican Governors--use broad-based categorical eligibility.
These states rely on cat-el for its flexibility to provide critical
assistance to those in their respective states in need of a hand up to
make ends meet.
Categorical eligibility enables states to better meet the needs of
hard-working families by matching gross income qualifications with the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF program, and SNAP.
As I've said previously, Republicans love talking about states'
rights, promoting state flexibility, and handing over to states the
administration of Federal safety net programs.
But when it comes to putting that rhetoric into practice for SNAP,
they want something very different. This despite decades of proof that
cat-el provides states the flexibility they need and want to better
serve vulnerable households.
Eliminating cat-el would increase the burden on states, while
providing no additional resources for the extra paperwork and
personnel, another unfunded mandate for states.
It seems Republicans only like to promote states' rights when it
means cutting off access to benefits and weakening the social safety
net. At the same time the Administration is working to restrict states'
use of cat-el, USDA issued guidance encouraging SNAP states to adopt
flexibilities to pursue child support orders; a widely unpopular and
sparsely used state option with high associated administrative costs.
``The party of states' rights'' seems more interested in a one-
size-fits-all approach based solely on conservative ideology.
They continue to criticize the program from on high; they talk
about the `dignity of work' and the `cycle of poverty' using pseudo-
academic data from armchair thinktanks; and they ignore already-strict
work requirements in statute to paint a dishonest picture of greedy,
shiftless welfare sponges.
At every turn, Republicans invoke the welfare reform of President
Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s.
Well I've got news for you: it was Clinton and then-Speaker Newt
Gingrich who established cat-el as the law of the land--a bipartisan,
state-centered approach.
The Administration's FY 2020 budget forewarned us of potential
changes to cat-el, so it's no surprise that there is a related pending
rule in USDA's regulatory agenda.
Now here we are again with my Republican colleagues looking to the
White House to accomplish what they could not--dramatically change cat-
el.
Again, I ask what do Congressional Republicans and this
Administration have against poor people? I've asked that question in
past hearings on this issue, across multiple Congresses.
I am willing and eager to engage my Republican colleagues in a
conversation about how to make this program more effective and
accessible to hungry Americans. So long as that conversation does not
start with the same tired attempts to reduce the SNAP rolls. That's not
a conversation that I'm willing to have.
The Chair. I now recognize Ranking Member Johnson for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DUSTY JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I do appreciate the opportunity for us to have a
hearing on a loophole within this food stamp program that is
desperately in need of improvement.
There are times when broad-based categorical eligibility
is, frankly, an embarrassment. There are times when it simply
doesn't work.
And I know we will hear some comments, hopefully we will
have some good discussion today, about administrative
efficiencies. I suspect we will hear some hyperbolic examples
of how changes to this BBCE can have a decimating impact on
school lunch programs.
And I think what I try to keep in mind is that we do need
to find a positive way forward and that scare tactics, false
advocacy, they don't hide the true issue here, and that is,
there are times when overreaching eligibility for this program
means that we are not targeting this program to our most needy
friends and neighbors. We should make no doubt about it: We
need the SNAP program, and we need it to be effective.
Above all, of course, states must convey SNAP benefits to
those who apply to other social safety net programs. And there
are all kinds of instances where that makes sense. But through
imperfect regulatory language, states are permitted additional
administrative flexibilities, and some states have abused that
flexibility.
Let's take Vermont, for instance, where the receipt of a
bookmark can provide eligibility for the SNAP program. And in
other states, eligibility can be granted via a line on an
application, a pamphlet with information that isn't even
relevant to the household receiving it, a brochure that is for
a different program entirely, that that program, again, doesn't
qualify for.
I am looking right now at Mr. Rob Undersander. He is a
Minnesota millionaire.
And, Mr. Undersander, welcome.
This is a man with assets in the millions who was able to
receive more than a nominal amount of SNAP benefit for months
and months. And he didn't do this out of any kind of a dark
heart; he did this to call attention to the fact that there are
flaws in the system. And it is Minnesota's abuses of this
administrative flexibility that has caused this problem.
I want to make it very clear: the data suggests that Mr.
Undersander is not alone. A report prepared for USDA found that
most income-eligible households with financial resources
exceeding the Federal resource limit have more than $20,000 in
countable assets. One in five had more than $100,000 in assets,
including tens of thousands of households with more than $1
million in assets. Mr. Undersander is not alone.
Now, I want to make it clear: I am not impugning his
reputation. He didn't lie on any forms. He simply exposed the
flaws of a failed system. It isn't his fault that we in D.C.
haven't done our job.
Receiving a check from our social safety net programs
should not be easier than applying for a job. And if
millionaires can receive these benefits, as they have, this
Committee has work to do.
Defenders of this regulatory flexibility claim it reduces
administrative costs. And I worked in state government for 12
years, at times very involved in our welfare programs, and I
just have not seen evidence, real evidence, that that is
necessarily the case. In fact, most state administrative costs
are high because of program enrollment. The more folks you
enroll, the higher your administrative costs. And so closing
this loophole could reduce administrative costs by $660 million
per year.
And I think it is right that we ask the question here: what
about the poor people? How do we help them? That is the goal of
programs like this. And so I look at that $660 million through
a really critically important lens, which is: Those dollars
could be better deployed to meet the critical goals and mission
of this program.
I sit on the Education and Labor Committee, where, just a
few weeks ago, I think an incorrect nexus was discussed at
length as it relates to this policy and school lunch. What we
never heard at Ed and Labor is that, even if the proposal were
to alter the regulatory language regarding categorical
eligibility, 99.9 percent of children receiving free and
reduced lunch would still remain eligible. We need to remember
that the National School Lunch Program doesn't base its
eligibility on SNAP--it has its own eligibility requirements--
and that children who qualify will still receive these
benefits.
Last, proponents talk about administrative burden to the
recipient, and that is a legitimate concern. We can probably
find a lot of bipartisan ground to address.
And so I just want to ask on the record for my colleagues
to host a hearing on technology. There are a variety of
innovations used today across other Federal and state programs
that can significantly ease the application process and that
shouldn't require any statutory manipulation. In that way, we
can help the most needy among us. And we should have that
conversation.
I welcome the witnesses, Madam Chair, and I look forward to
their testimony.
The Chair. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
And let me just say that I challenge my colleagues to find
any program that is perfect. I would be happy to hear of
perfection in any program run by any state or the Federal
Government or any city, and just let me know what that is.
But I also am concerned about the fact that someone would
intentionally try to take resources from people in need.
Now, I have heard about this ridiculous millionaire stunt.
Chairman Peterson and I talked this morning, and since he is in
a Veterans' Affairs hearing right now, I will share some of the
facts that you need to know.
When this story broke 2 years ago, the Chairman called the
office in Sterns County, where the alleged millionaire, Mr.
Undersander, enrolled in the program. Mr. Undersander told the
caseworkers that he wanted to be famous for his crusade against
SNAP.
Mr. Undersander may be in this room, and if he is, I would
just like to say this directly to him. You willfully and
maliciously gained SNAP benefits. You, an alleged millionaire,
used mischaracterizations of your finances to cheat the
program. You took benefits meant for the very seniors in
Minnesota you serve through your volunteer work. And you did
this all to continue the right-wing crusade against poor
people.
Now, we all know that cat-el is a widely used option and
exists to provide states flexibility and to save administrative
costs. If I did everything I could to find a way to game
something, I could do it. But what we expect is that people,
decent people, in this country would do the right thing and try
to help people as opposed to hurt them.
Mr. Johnson. Madam Chair, I would ask, Mr. Undersander has
a different characterization of those events, and I would just
ask unanimous consent to submit his opinion column from his
local newspaper into the record so people can hear his side as
well.
The Chair. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
[The article referred to is located on p. 107.]
The Chair. Mr. Conaway, do you wish to make an opening
statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. Conaway. Just a couple comments, Madam Chair. Thank you
for that opportunity. I appreciate that.
States' rights were invoked as a part of our legitimate
disagreement on how this works. I am a flat-out 10th Amendment
kind of guy as well. But these are Federal resources that we
are talking about, and the states should have restrictions on
how those resources are deployed. And I don't think it is
unreasonable that those restrictions make sense, and having an
asset test ignored on SNAP is regrettable.
I don't blame the Governors. I don't blame the states. We
have set up a system that allows them to draw Federal resources
into their state to help the poor and to help anybody. And so
if I am a Governor and I have an opportunity to bring Federal
dollars to my state, I am going to move heaven and earth to
make that happen. They are just operating within the rules and
the law that we have set up.
Our problem is us. We need to adjust it and make
adjustments to these rules and the regulations in order that--
you are right--scarce resources can, in fact, go to the folks
who need them the most. And that is what we are all about.
I would like to get it into the record that, when my
colleague said that she would be willing to work with us, last
year, when we had this subject matter in front of the
Committee, she and her team chose to not offer one single
amendment to the bill that we had up.
You didn't offer an amendment to strike everything we did.
You didn't offer an amendment to improve or fix it. You just
sat and said no. And that is discouraging, in and of itself, to
have an opportunity, every 5 years, when we engage on this
issue, you guys just didn't do it and didn't engage. And I just
wanted to get one into the record as well.
But I appreciate you having this hearing today. It is
helpful for us to have these conversations about a really
important program that we are all supportive of. We just want
it to do better. And to invoke the idea that a program that is
not perfect shouldn't get better is a bit of an odd argument as
well.
I appreciate you giving me a chance to say a couple of
words, and I yield back.
Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair?
The Chair. Yes, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern. I just wanted to clarify the record.
Yes, it is true the Democrats didn't offer any amendments
to the farm bill, in large part because of the nutrition title.
I was, at that time, the Ranking Democratic Member on the
Nutrition Subcommittee, and we were never consulted about the
nutrition title. We don't even know where it was written. We
don't even know where it came from. It came out of nowhere. It
didn't reflect any of the hearings that we had. It was clear
that it was just yet another part of this attack on poor
people. And, quite frankly, we were offended.
And I am relieved that the final farm bill that reflected
the negotiation between the House and Senate basically cut out
all of this language that would have punished low-income people
in this country.
And let me just also say for the record, if somebody
intentionally defrauds the Federal Government, they ought to go
to jail.
I yield back.
The Chair. We really do need to get to our witnesses.
Mr. Conaway. Would the gentleman yield?
The Chair. Is it short?
Mr. Conaway. Yes.
The concepts of what we used to write the farm bill SNAP
programs were shared with then-Ranking Member Peterson. We
shared all of the language with him in February. The markup was
in March. There was plenty of time for you guys to have read
the documents.
And Mr. Undersander did not break the law. He simply abided
by the rules that were in place. He didn't defraud----
Mr. McGovern. He intentionally defrauded the Federal
Government. That is, in my opinion, breaking the law.
The Chair. Okay. But let me close this part of the
conversation, because we have witnesses waiting.
You may have given the information to Mr. Peterson, but you
swore him to not share it with us.
We are going to now move to our witnesses.
And let me introduce now our first witness, who is the
Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin, Mr. Mandela Barnes.
Our second witness, Dr. John Davis, Executive Director of
the Mississippi Department of Human Services.
We will also hear from Ms. Lisa Davis, Senior Vice
President, No Kid Hungry Campaign, Share Our Strength.
Our final witness is Ms. Elaine Waxman, Senior Fellow at
the Urban Institute Income and Benefits Policy Center.
Mr. Barnes, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. MANDELA BARNES, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, STATE OF
WISCONSIN, MADISON, WI
Mr. Barnes. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Johnson,
and other distinguished Members of the Committee. Good
afternoon. I am looking forward to a very productive
conversation.
Again, I am Mandela Barnes, Lieutenant Governor of the
State of Wisconsin. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss how restricting or
eliminating categorical eligibility would not only put millions
of families in danger of losing SNAP benefits and also increase
their risk of food insecurity, but it would also add a costly
burden on the states and impede on our right to provide the
resources we deem crucial and necessary for our citizens to
thrive.
Like many of you here today, I was raised to believe that I
could do anything and be anything I wanted to be if I worked
hard enough. My mother was a schoolteacher, and she taught me
the value of education. My father was an auto worker, and he
taught me the value of hard work.
After college, I chose to pursue a career in public
service, and I found myself in a job where I helped others find
employment. I was able to assist people of all ages in my
community and help break down barriers to help them become
contributing members of our society and also work toward
lifting themselves out of poverty.
Now, ironically, I lost my job helping other people find
jobs, and during the short time I was unemployed, and even
before that I had my hours cut at that job, and I did receive a
modest SNAP benefit. And that allowed me to be able to put food
on the table instead of forcing myself to choose between
groceries and paying the bills.
I still have my SNAP card, my FoodShare card, somewhere
laying around at the house. I was going to bring it today,
because it normally sits around to remind me that I was once in
a position where I, too, needed assistance.
And as I have traveled the State of Wisconsin as Lieutenant
Governor, I have heard so many similar stories. I have been
able to hear from families who are more at ease because they
know that their elderly relatives' SNAP benefits will ensure
that they have access to healthy food. I have also been able to
meet with parents who are thankful that they are able to put
dinner on the table each night because of their SNAP benefits.
And I have heard from teachers and principals, and they
tell me how important it is that free and reduced lunch are
available, and what that means for so many of their students in
their schools and in their school districts.
You see, in Wisconsin, we have a responsibility, like every
other state, to make sure that opportunity exists in every
part, every county, every ZIP Code. That means ensuring that
each and every person has access to nutritious food, whether it
is in our largest cities, whether it is in our Native
communities, in our schools, or the most rural parts of our
states.
Broad-based categorical eligibility is a crucial component
in ensuring that our state can provide the full set of services
that struggling families need to lift themselves out of
poverty.
Categorical eligibility helps more than 25,000 families in
Wisconsin; it helps them to put food on the table. These
individuals, many of whom are elderly or just families trying
to make ends meet, these are people who will lose all of their
benefits under the Administration's proposed change.
Now, I recently met with an aging group in my state, and
one of their primary concerns were the barriers that many
elderly face in getting nutritious food. We are talking about
people who have done everything right their entire lives,
people who have worked hard, people who have contributed to our
society and are valued and respected members of their
communities. But their fixed incomes often create challenges in
keeping their refrigerators and pantries stocked with healthy
food. And the small benefit they receive goes a long way and
ensures that our aging population remains healthy and that we
are treating them with the dignity and the respect that they
deserve.
Reducing or eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility
would also have a profound impact on the health and well-being
of our children. Roughly 24,000 children in our state will lose
access to nutritious food under this proposed rule change.
Also worrisome is that these children also lose eligibility
for free and reduced-price breakfast and lunch at their
schools, thereby creating an additional hardship for families
and a cost to the school system.
The consequences of going hungry as a child will have a
lasting effect on a person's health, their education, and
ultimately their future. In Wisconsin, we believe that what is
best for our kids is what is best for our state, so we cannot
afford to have 24,000 children go hungry in our state.
Finally, many of the families who also qualify for SNAP
through broad-based categorical eligibility are the working
poor. They not only benefit from food assistance but also from
the additional job training or retraining provided to those
eligible for SNAP. These services help lift families out of
poverty.
They are helping farmers, caregivers, and factory workers
all across our state. These people are contributing members of
our society and they are taxpayers, but, unfortunately, low
wages and high expenses, like childcare and rent, are making it
hard for them to make ends meet. Broad-based categorical
eligibility provides needed relief for these families, and it
promotes work. Eliminating it would have dangerous
repercussions in Wisconsin, including added fiscal costs for
our state and less flexibility.
But most concerning is that reducing or eliminating broad-
based categorical eligibility would impose a benefit cliff.
Instead of making it harder for states to provide nutritional
food to their residents, such as the proposed Administration
change would do, the Federal Government should be allowing
states the flexibility to makes decisions that are best for
their state.
Categorical eligibility allows states to build a safety net
that supports work and fosters opportunity. And it is my
responsibility, as Lieutenant Governor, to ensure that
opportunity exists for all people in my state--for children,
for the poor, for the hungry, for the working men and women,
for the elderly, for those with different abilities, for
everybody who has been left behind. And as respected leaders,
we all have this responsibility.
Thank you for your time today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barnes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mandela Barnes, Lieutenant Governor, State
of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
Chair Fudge, Ranking Member Johnson, and other distinguished
Members of the Committee--good afternoon.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
how restricting or eliminating categorical eligibility would not only
put millions of families in danger of losing Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and increasing their risk for food
security--but it would also add a costly burden onto states and impede
on our right to provide the resources we deem crucial and necessary for
our citizens to thrive.
I am Mandela Barnes, Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin. Like many of
you here today, I was raised to believe that I could do anything and be
anything if I worked hard. My mother, a schoolteacher, taught me the
value of education, and my father, an auto parts manufacturer, taught
me the value of hard work. After attending college at Alabama A&M, I
chose to pursue a career in public service. Soon after college, I found
myself working in my hometown of Milwaukee, in a job helping others
find employment. I assisted people of all ages in my community break
down barriers, become contributing members of our society, and work
toward lifting themselves out of poverty. Ironically, I lost my job
that helped others find jobs. I didn't immediately find work, but
thankfully I qualified to receive a modest SNAP benefit, which allowed
me to put food on the table instead of forcing me to choose between
groceries and paying my bills. SNAP helped me for short time when I
needed it most.
Since it was established over 50 years ago, the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, has proven to be the
singular most effective anti-hunger program in the country--helping
more than 40 million people--many of them low-wage working families,
low-income seniors, and people with disabilities living on fixed
incomes--afford a nutritionally adequate diet.
In Wisconsin, each month--an average of 615,000 people with limited
resources buy the food they need to stay healthy. 41% of these people
are children.
Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility
Eligibility requirements for SNAP are largely set by the Federal
Government while states administer the program. We view our state as a
key partner in SNAP's success, and we believe SNAP is a crucial
component of the full set of benefits and services that we offer to
struggling families and communities. I appreciate you giving me the
opportunity to explain how we've used the broad-based categorical
eligibility option to strengthen SNAP for those in our communities who
face some of the biggest obstacles in life.
Federal law gives states several options to set the program's
rules, including the one we are here to discuss today: broad-based
categorical eligibility. Under broad-based categorical eligibility,
states have the option to raise income cutoffs and ease asset limits
for households that receive a TANF-funded benefit other than cash
assistance.
By using the same gross income and asset limits of other programs,
the process to enroll in SNAP is more streamlined and reduces confusion
for many households. In Wisconsin, individuals and families who use our
Department of Workforce Development's job center resources, that are
paid for by the TANF Federal or state maintenance-of-effort funds, are
eligible as broad-based categorically eligible.
Households that qualify through broad-based categorical eligibility
still must go through the traditional eligibility screening process
which requires that they document their income and circumstances, so
that the state can determine if their net income is low enough to
qualify for SNAP benefits. It is possible for a family to be
categorically eligible for SNAP, but unable to receive a SNAP benefit
because their net income is too high.
The mechanics around how categorical eligibility works is far less
important than who it helps. Wisconsin used the broad-based option to
raise our gross income test and to eliminate our SNAP asset test.
Wisconsin adopted broad-based categorical eligibility to address the
problem of struggling families fearing that they would lose public
assistance entirely if they earned any extra income or saved too much
money or bought a car to get a new job.
Relaxing those rules means that Wisconsin can better support
working families trying to earn their way up the economic ladder, as
well to promote savings. Supporting work and promoting savings among
households with low income, including workers, seniors, and people with
disabilities, has been important in Wisconsin. We strive to build a
safety net that supports hard work and fosters opportunity. Options
like categorical eligibility in SNAP help make Wisconsin's health and
human services programs more responsive to the needs of struggling
citizens and communities.
Impact on Wisconsin Families
Broad-based categorical eligibility is important to ensuring
Wisconsin's communities are healthy and strong. Eliminating it would
hurt hard-working families, seniors, and people with disabilities.
Doing so would also increase administrative burden and exacerbate the
benefit cliff.
Broad-based categorical eligibility helps more than 25,000 families
in Wisconsin put food on their tables. In an analysis done by the
Wisconsin Department of Health Services in 2017, it was found that
lowering the income limit from 200% FPL to 130% FPL would negatively
impact about eight percent of SNAP families--which equals to about
25,000 Wisconsin families. These individuals would lose all their
benefits under the Administration's proposed change. Many of these
households are older adults on a fixed income.
The higher gross income limits allowed under broad-based
categorical eligibility are especially important for households that
have high expenses such as rent or childcare. In Milwaukee County, the
median household income is not high enough to afford the county's
median rent--meaning many in the county are using a large portion of
their income to pay for housing.\1\ Another barrier working families in
Wisconsin face is the high cost of child care. In Wisconsin, child care
costs outpace tuition at that state's 4 year universities.\2\ With
working families, who earn low wages, forced to pay high amounts for
things like child care and rent, SNAP's broad-based categorical
eligibility option ensures that families are able to obtain nutritious
food while still being able to afford basic necessities--necessities
that are crucial for families to have in order to hold on down a steady
job.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://wispolicyforum.org/research/the-cost-of-living-
milwaukee-countys-rental-housing-trends-and-challenges/.
\2\ https://www.epi.org/child-care-costs-in-the-united-states/#/WI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The option has also allowed Wisconsin to eliminate its asset test.
While asset tests were put in place with the notion that public
assistance programs should only provide benefits to people with too few
resources to avoid destitution, there is no doubt that denying benefits
to individuals with large assets helps the government to save money. In
reality though, low income households do not have very many assets.
Most applicants for SNAP have, at most, a few hundred dollars.
Requesting information about financial holdings that families do not
have is wasteful administratively. More important, from a public policy
standpoint is that asset-testing also creates a powerful incentive for
families not to save money. Our state wants to encourage families to
save.
Allowing low-income households to build assets can help move them
out of poverty more quickly and effectively. Savings allow families to
address small problems without them becoming large crises, like paying
for a car or house repair or being able to cover rent when a earner's
income dips unexpectedly. Savings also allow individuals to build for
the future--whether it be buying a reliable car, obtaining a key
license for employment, or helping to move to a better neighborhood.
Re-imposing the Federal asset limit in SNAP would discourage savings.
Families would know that setting aside funds in savings could put their
access to food through SNAP at risk.
Research has shown that higher asset limits are beneficial for
elderly individuals, as is broad-based categorical eligibility as a
whole. Elimination of it would have a devastating impact on the
elderly. I recently met with an aging group in rural Wisconsin, and one
of their primary concerns was access to food for the growing aging
population in Wisconsin. They highlighted the barriers many elderly
face in getting nutritious food. These are people who did everything
right their entire lives: worked hard, contributed to our society, and
are valued and respected members of our communities--but their fixed
incomes often create challenges in keeping their refrigerators and
pantries stocked with healthy food. The small benefit they receive goes
a long way, and it ensures that our aging population remains healthy
and that we are treating them with the dignity and respect they
deserve.
If broad-based categorical eligibility were to be eliminated, it
would have a profound impact on the health and well-being of children
in Wisconsin. Roughly 24,000 children in the state would lose access to
nutritious food under the proposed rule change--that's 41% of those who
qualify for SNAP under broad-based categorical eligibility. Also
worrisome is that these children would also lose eligibility to free or
reduced priced breakfasts and lunches at their schools, thereby
creating an additional hardship for families and a cost to the school
system.
Finally, many of the families who qualify for SNAP through broad-
based categorical eligibility are the working poor. They not only
benefit from food assistance, but also from the additional job training
or retraining provided through our FoodShare Employment Services, which
they would not be qualified for if they were not eligible for SNAP.
These services help lift families out of poverty. With poverty on the
rise in Wisconsin,\3\ it is critical that families continue to have
access to services that will help break the cycle of poverty. I know
ending poverty is a priority for all leaders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.irp.wisc.edu/study-finds-wisconsin-poverty-rate-
increased-in-2016-despite-jobs-growth/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broad-based categorical eligibility has numerous benefits to the
working poor in Wisconsin. For example, qualifying for SNAP also
qualifies families for other programs within local municipalities. For
example, in the City of Madison, individuals who show their EBT card
can access reduced cost thirty day bus passes. Households that are
eligible for SNAP may also be eligible for lifeline telephone services
which provides phone services at low or no cost, which can be very
valuable for our elderly and people with disabilities who live in rural
and remote areas of our state.
It must be noted that categorical eligibility does not result in
substantial SNAP benefits going to non-needy families and does not mean
households automatically get SNAP benefits--they must qualify for
benefits under Federal SNAP rules. This program truly helps those in
need and provides assistance when people need it most in their lives.
SNAP supports work and does not punish individuals for building
assets--something that helps low-income families invest in their
futures.
Benefit Cliff
The Administration's proposal to reduce or eliminate broad-based
categorical eligibility would impose a benefit cliff in 42 states and
territories, including Wisconsin, that currently use categorical
eligibility to raise the gross income limit.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without categorical eligibility, a family would lose substantial
SNAP benefits from a small increase in earnings that raises their gross
income above 130 percent of the Federal poverty level--creating a steep
benefit cliff. A modest increase in hourly wages could make families
ineligible for SNAP, but the income increase could be less than the
amount the family loses in benefits--forcing parents to choose between
putting food on the table for their families or an increase in income.
This is counterproductive to our goal of encouraging individuals to
work. In a best-case scenario, a family is only marginally better off.
But worst-case scenario, parents work more and earn more, but their
families are worse off financially.\5\ Categorical eligibility allows
for families to gradually phase off the SNAP program as their wages
increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.nccp.org/projects/files/NCCP_CO_presentation07.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative and Fiscal Burden on States
This change will not only negatively affect Wisconsin families, but
it will also create a financial burden for state agencies and will have
adverse effects on our economy. Altering SNAP eligibility rules will
force us and the other 42 states and territories who have adopted this
option to make dramatic administrative changes and would also make SNAP
rules considerably more complicated.
Wisconsin eliminating categorical eligibility could cost taxpayers
$2 million and likely would take about 18 months to implement the
change. Income maintenance agencies and counties across Wisconsin would
also see increased costs if this option was eliminated, because it
would take them longer to complete member interviews, request
verifications, and process those verifications.
There is also an overall impact to the Wisconsin economy with
reduced SNAP benefits, as most economists agree that SNAP benefits have
a multiplier effect on local economies. Many research papers cite $1.50
to $1.70 being put into the local economy for each SNAP dollar spent.
The proposed changes could mean that $29.9 million will not be spent in
Wisconsin communities annually.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Wisconsin Department of Health Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closing
As leaders, we have committed ourselves to providing opportunity
and justice for all--this includes our youngest, our oldest, and those
who are working to climb out poverty. In a nation as great and as
wealthy as the United States of America, no one should go hungry--no
child, no one's grandmother, or no one's neighbor. Broad-based
categorical eligibility helps ensure parents all across our country can
put a meal on their table at the end of a long, hard, workday. 24,000+
children in Wisconsin are depending on it. We are looking to Congress
and the Administration to give us more options, not take them away, to
strengthen the safety net and to support opportunity. If this option
were eliminated or cut back, it would have a detrimental impact on
families, limit state's from having the flexibility to choose what is
best for their citizens, and be a fiscal burden to states like
Wisconsin.
Governor Tony Evers and I have a responsibility to make sure that
opportunity exists in every part of Wisconsin--and that includes
ensuring that each and every person has access to nutritious food--
whether that's in our largest cities, within our Native communities, in
our schools, or in the most rural parts of our state. And as Lieutenant
Governor of Wisconsin, I am focused on helping make my state more
equitable. That starts with making sure every person in Wisconsin--
regardless of [ZIP C]ode or income status--has the tools and resources
they need to succeed in life.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
I am sure you have now figured out the lighting system. I
neglected to tell you about it. It is not very difficult. When
the light is green, you begin. When the light turns yellow, it
is time to start to close; you have 1 minute left. When the
light turns red, your time is up, so please try to wrap up as
quickly as you can.
Mr. Barnes. I apologize.
The Chair. No, no, you were perfect. You were perfect. Now,
I am not going to let them go over, but you were perfect.
You are recognized, Dr. Davis, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN DAVIS, Ph.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, BROOKHAVEN, MS
Dr. John Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Johnson, and all the Committee Members. It is a privilege to be
here today to talk to you guys. I am humbled at the opportunity
to get to speak to this particular situation.
The Mississippi Department of Human Services is in a very
unique position to create a new approach to human services and
needs-based programs in our state. We recognize more than ever
the need to work with families holistically rather than simply
determining eligibility and waiting for self-sustainability.
Our staff approaches an individual who walks in to the MDHS
office with the understanding that they are not asking for a
handout, but, in fact, they are asking for a hand up.
MDHS has been collaborating with multiple state agencies.
All of this came about specifically with the WIOA, Workforce
Investment Opportunity Act. It kind of forced states to start
look at, holistically, the agencies working together to build a
better Mississippi. We began in 2016 by focusing our efforts on
four priorities that I am going to describe, and we began by
reengineering our offices to offer a multigenerational,
collaborative approach.
Those four areas were: invest in children and families
through workforce development and training; improve
opportunities for individuals to make healthy, self-sustaining
choices; increase department capacity and efficiencies; and
then improve systems. Because we recognize individuals are
worth that, families are worth that.
The priorities that I have listed was a mission for a more
effective, efficient, and open government. Focusing on those
priorities has allowed the state to realize the commonalities
between social capital, health and wellbeing, economic
supports, education and training, which will ultimately allow
the state to maximize its resources by eliminating duplication
of services, but also never to be last again in anything, as we
are always labeled.
The first, investing in children and families, is important
as we start talking about BBCE, broad-based categorical
eligibility. MDHS's success will be measured and has been
measured by the success of the clients that are served by the
agency. A family-centered, multigenerational approach has been
developed to invest in early intervention programs that will
improve life outcomes for children and families.
MDHS is doing this through the support of early involvement
in case decision-making and providing access to activities
which lead to livable wages through higher education, including
vocational and technical training.
The MDHS approach continues to recognize the importance of
the family unit as it relates to the overall success of each of
the members in the household.
MDHS has proven through the years that we are more
proficient in determining eligibility timely, accurately, and
efficiently. However, the mentality of simply moving
individuals in and out must be replaced with an effort to move
them to self-sustainability.
Assisting individuals with a needs-based program is
providing them with a supplemental or temporary support as they
move to initial employment and beyond to greater employment. We
understand it as being more important to not just get the first
job but the second job and the third job so that individuals
can become who they want to be, not who I want them to be.
The overarching goal has been to stabilize the households
and then provide an opportunity for greater individual success
for household members. Assisting the adult in finding
employment is only the first step if children are also part of
the home. MDHS case managers must also look back and see how
the children may be assisted. Providing resources for the child
to be exposed to training, counseling, mentoring, tutoring will
provide stability for current and the future healthy choices.
Partners for success in workforce development: We have
partners in multiple state agencies.
The Employment Security Office, which is our Department of
Labor in the state, has now taken on some of the responsibility
of helping us to move these individuals through the process to
employment. They have helped us with 5,800 cases on the TANF
side, a little more than 253,000 cases on the SNAP side. That
provides an individual with a subject-matter expert on how to
actually find a job that they want, that they can be successful
in, rather than our office, our eligibility staff being
responsible for helping that individual find the job.
The Mississippi Board of Community College and Junior
Colleges has been a critical partner in our efforts. The
Institutions for Higher Learning, which is our university
system in the state, has also been critical.
We also understand this with broad-based categorical
eligibility: by simply saying that we do not have that in our
state--which July 1 begins that we will not have BBCE in the
State of Mississippi. But we know that it takes investment in
our staff through things like Law of 16, which is our personal
and professional development programs for our staff members, to
then replicate that over with our clients to make sure that
they are empowered to be whom they have been called to be. BBCE
alone is not necessarily, for the State of Mississippi, the
answer for individuals to be become successful.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. John Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Davis, Ph.D., Executive Director,
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Brookhaven, MS
The Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS) is in a very
unique position to create a new approach to human services and needs
based programs in this state. We recognize, more than ever, the need to
work with families holistically rather than simply determining
eligibility and waiting for self-sustainability. Our staff approaches
an individual who walks into an MDHS office with the understanding they
are not asking for a ``hand-out'' but in fact, they are asking for a
``hand-up.''
MDHS is collaborating with other agencies and stakeholders to build
a better Mississippi. We began in 2016 by focusing our efforts on the
four priorities described below, and we are reengineering our offices
to offer a multi-generational, collaborative approach.
Invest in children and families through workforce
development and training;
Improve opportunities for individuals to make healthy self-
sustaining choices;
Increase department capacity and efficiencies; and
Improve systems.
The priorities listed above align with our mission for a more
effective, efficient, and open government. Focusing on these priorities
will allow the state to realize the commonalities between social
capital, health and well-being, economic supports, education, and
training which will ultimately all the state to maximize its resources
by eliminating duplication of services.
Invest in Children and Families
MDHS' success will be measured by the success of the clients served
by the agency. A family-centered, multi-generational approach will be
developed to invest in early intervention programs that will improve
life outcomes for children and families. MDHS is doing this through the
support of early involvement in case decision-making, and providing
access to activities which lead to livable wages through higher
education including vocational and technical training. The MDHS
approach continues to recognize the importance of the family unit as it
relates to the overall success of each of the members of the household.
The county MDHS offices are going through major changes to
accommodate the case management approach to all individuals receiving
services through the programs offered. We will be reducing the number
of Eligibility Workers and increasing the number of Case Managers to
accomplish our multi-generational approach. We have already seen more
cost and customer efficiencies without creating an overall increase is
staffing.
MDHS has proven through the years that we are very proficient in
determining eligibility timely, accurately, and efficiently. However,
the mentality of simply moving individuals in-and-out must be replaced
with an effort to move them to self-sustainability. Assisting
individuals with a needs based program is providing them with a
supplemental or temporary support as they move to initial employment
and beyond to greater employment. Case management staff will be
assigned to applicants to guide them through this process and then
track outcomes.
The overarching goal is to stabilize the home and then provide an
opportunity for greater individual success for household members.
Assisting the adult in finding employment is only the first step if
children are also part of the home. MDHS Case Managers must also look
back and see how the children may be assisted. Providing resources for
the child to be exposed to training, counseling, mentoring and tutoring
will provide stability for current and future healthy choices.
Partners for Success in Workforce Development
Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES). We have
entered into a partnership with MDES so they may provide Job Readiness
Assessments (JRA), Employment Development Plans (EDP), soft-skills
training, resume building, etc. to all adults who apply for services at
MDHS. The first steps were taken taken to implement this plan in the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program which affects
approximately 5,800 cases. The second step is currently under way to be
implemented during this fiscal year will be the individuals in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) which affects
approximately 253,000 cases This also includes ensuring each of the
applicants are entered into the Mississippi Works system. Therefore, a
request for assistance through MDHS is also a request for assistance to
find employment. Prior to this agreement, MDHS and MDES were
duplicating services with no single plan of action for the individual.
The partnership with MDES also includes allowing them to co-locate in
strategic MDHS offices for efficiency in services for those seeking
assistance as well as the taxpayer who funds these programs.
Mississippi Board of Community and Junior Colleges (MBCJC). MDHS
continues to build on the partnership with MBCJC to develop
opportunities for training and education. The collaboration has grown
significantly over the past 6 months and will continue to develop new
opportunities for those we seek to serve. The MBCJC also is working
closely with MDHS in our efforts with the SNAP Employment and Training
(E&T) program. MBCJC has also partnered with MDHS to provide Child Care
Provider training at no cost to the state.
Institutions for Higher Education (IHL). MDHS is working to partner
with IHL to offer individuals an opportunity to complete their degree
the Complete 2 Compete (C2C). There are a significant number of adults
who have multiple college credits but have not received a degree. This
program will provide an additional resource for those seeking self-
sufficiency.
Eight State Universities. MDHS has reached out to each of the eight
state universities to establish Youth Development programs. There has
been initial information that indicates as many as 40% of all athletes
attending the state universities are already parents. Many of these are
non-custodial parents. MDHS and the universities developed programs to
assist these athletes and multiply the affect by letting them reach out
to the youth in their communities. This may be the only exposure many
of the youth will have to university campuses. We will also offer
career technical training in an effort to guide the youth to future
success.
Mississippi Community Education Center/Families First Resource
Centers (FFRC). Dr. Nancy New in their capacity as leaders in the FFRCs
have expanded their services to include counseling, mentoring,
vocational training, career development, tutoring, forensic
interviewing, fatherhood initiatives, Healthy Teens for a Better
Mississippi, parenting classes, etc. These services are now offered in
every county of the state. MDHS and FFRC will continue to offer
services as appropriate based on the needs of each community and
individual. The FFRCs will also be a valuable resource for the MDHS
case management staff as they offer solutions to those who seek our
services.
Improve Opportunities for Individuals
As part of the multi-generational approach, MDHS is committed to
improving opportunities for individuals to make healthy self-sustaining
decisions. The partnerships we have developed over the previous 3 years
will continue to expand and become the base of operation. MDHS
recognizes the need to maximize resources and multiply opportunities.
With shrinking state funds, we must identify duplicated and overlapping
services to eliminate. In doing so, we will identify public-private
partnerships that will produce cost savings with added capacity and
performance based outcomes. This will also ensure the elimination of
Broad Based Categorical Eligibility and not waiving the ABAWD
requirements will not adversely affect those we seek to serve.
The MDHS case management staff offer a guided approach through the
complicated process of accessing resources. With your leadership, the
agency partnered with the majority of other related agencies to produce
the first approved Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
State Plan. This partnership provides for four Workforce Areas around
the state where the participating agencies will be housed in one
location for maximum service delivery.
The FFRCs will provide a valuable resource to identify ways to
improve opportunities for individuals. In addition, organizations such
as Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCA, and Jobs for Mississippi Graduates are
available for additional capacity building.
Improve Department Capacity and Efficiency
MDHS has identified multiple opportunities to increase capacity and
efficiency. Evaluating each of the 13 divisions within the agency has
exposed cost allocation and matching deficiencies. MDHS will maximize
Federal funds while reducing state general funds.
There will be further analysis to determine how the agency will
shed antiquated and inefficient policies and procedures. Every
contract, sub-grant and MOU will be evaluated. In addition, further
accountability will be implemented within the agency. An Internal Audit
Department has been established to provide the necessary oversight of
operations both administrative and programmatic. This too will provide
opportunities for improvement and efficiencies.
Effective October 1, 2016, MDHS entered into a contract with Young
Williams, a private nationally recognized Child Support organization
based in Mississippi, to operate the MDHS local offices for child
support. This action was taken as a result of reductions in the MDHS
budgets, space needs for the recently created Mississippi Department of
Child Protection Services (MDCPS) and a desire to modernize the
program. During the first several months, MDHS will transfer operations
in a way that will maintain current operations with no changes. i.e.,
same offices, same processes, same employees, etc. With this action,
all 82 county Child Support operations are managed by this private
company.
During the Young Williams pilot program for 17 counties in
Southwest Mississippi, it was proven successful both with results and
with saving Mississippi tax dollars. MDHS estimates there will be a
minimum of $1 million in cost savings with the potential for $2 million
in state funds saved. The state-wide transition to Young Williams is
complex as it involves over 250,000 cases. All MDHS Child Support staff
were offered jobs at or above the MDHS pay rate, with similar benefits
and retirement options. Young Williams has designed the transition to
take place over a period of time to avoid disruption of services.
There is ongoing work to reorganize the agency to align more
completely with your priorities. Specifically, a Workforce Development
Unit within Field Operations has been created while eliminating the
Division of Family Foundation and Support. This was accomplished by
utilizing the FFRCs to provide the functionality previously
administered by state employees. This model will be replicated across
the agency.
Improve Systems
The industry standard in human services across the nation is moving
more toward an automated technology driven delivery system.
Mississippi, and specifically MDHS, has lagged behind in this critical
area for many years. The four legacy systems and three stand-alone
systems within the agency lack efficiency and are tremendously expense
to maintain. However, they have proven to be workhorses that could
provide more capacity with the proper updates. MDHS has worked for 2
years with the ITS procurement process and finally has the approval to
move forward with the updates necessary to truly affect positive and
lasting change. We have also created in-house referral systems that
ensure the Generation Plus (gen+) approach remains viable.
The efficiency and cost savings realized from the updates currently
being implemented, will provide the front-line county employees a
greater resource for achieving the multi-generational goals identified
above. The agency utilizes technology to further identify how best to
allocate agency resources. This includes staff assignment.
Issues of Concern Identified in Prior Legislative Session
The issues that were identified in the prior legislative session
were centered around the bill known as H.O.P.E. Act. The East Coast
group, FGA, worked with the legislature during the last session to
offer strategies to address their perceived ``loopholes'' in the
Medicaid, SNAP and TANF programs. The major issues include:
Loopholes in Eligibility--FGA states the Broad Based Categorical
Eligibility (BBCE) option, which allows the resources of applicants to
be disregarded, produces fraud and abuse. The state has begun the
process effective July 1, 2019. Time-frame for policy re-writes and
system re-design took approximately six to design and implement. Costs
associated with this change has been minimal.
Start Checking Assets--With the elimination of BBCE we now are
federally required to ``check assets''. Mississippi is confident we can
do this in a very effective and least invasive way possible. This
requires cooperation and automation between state agencies, financial
institutions, etc. The agreements with state agencies would not be
difficult but, automation would be very expensive requiring an initial
up-front investment of state funds. I would need to include this
additional funds request in my 2018 budget with your approval. The
estimated cost associated with this change would be approximately $1.5
million conservatively.
Codify Work Requirements--The WIOA State Plan specifically
addresses both TANF and SNAP caseloads in the Workforce Development
initiative.
Improve Eligibility Verification and Monitoring--The current
eligibility verification and monitoring process with SNAP and TANF is
significant . We spend more than $3 million per year to utilize all
Federal match opportunities. In addition, the MOU with MDES is intended
to further the income verification process with minimal costs
associated with this match.
Improve Identity Verification--The FGA report targets improved
identity verification as a solution to identity fraud etc. in the
Medicaid program. The SNAP Federal regulations allow the state to pend
eligibility verification for head of household but not for the other
household members.
Share Data Across Agencies--MDHS has executed multiple MOUs with
the specific agencies associated with the needs based programs we
administer. The WIOA State Plan as well as the State Workforce
Development Board have been driving forces in the data sharing project.
NSPARC reports the new ``hubs'' for real time data sharing will be
fully available July 2019.
Add Additional Programs to the National Accuracy Clearinghouse
(NAC)--MDHS has lead the nation in developing the NAC with five states
as part of the original consortium through a pilot program allowed by
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The national office
recently announced they would allow an expansion of this project. The
USDA is not offering additional funding but, Mississippi agreed to
continue to lead this effort. The governance structure for the program
is being developed with our Federal partners and there are 22 states
who have expressed interest in joining the project. Other programs,
such as Medicaid, has definitely been a key factor in the design. This
took approximately 12 months of onboarding associated with this
process.
Law of 16
We have [i]dentified the need for professional and personal
development for both our staff and those we serve. The Law of 16
Development Program has been implemented agency wide and we are now
working with other state agencies to train their staff. In addition, we
have implemented this program to address the needs of those we serve.
We see this as a way to eliminate one of the last barriers to finding
true self sufficiency for those who seek to not be dependent on needs
based programs. Empowering individuals and families is transformational
in the field of Human Services and we are more than willing to be
leaders in this area.
Childcare Fraud and Biometrics
The National Child Care Reauthorization Bill passed in 2015 with
final rules received at the end of September 2016 imposes a multitude
of changes on states. Many have called these changes unfunded mandates.
Working with partner agencies as well as the SECAC, MDHS submitted the
Child Care State Plan which was conditionally approved. Our Federal
partners are allowed the state up to 18 months to develop a working
plan to submit for approval followed by statewide implementation. Fraud
prevention and a quality are two of the key components of the new
requirements
Summary and Moving Forward
The agency will continue to move forward to identify cost savings
and efficiencies to ensure we are responsive to those seeking our
services but, more importantly to the taxpayers of Mississippi. MDHS is
rebranding the agency to move towards Workforce Development centered
practice.
MDHS is up for the challenge. Restructuring human services to meet
the ever evolving needs specific to Mississippi is worth the energy and
effort. Please find enclosed a quick view of highlights from each of
the program areas.
Respectfully,
John Davis,
Executive Director,
Mississippi Department of Human Services.
Attachment 1
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Attachment 2
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chair. Thank you very much.
Ms. Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LISA DAVIS, J.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NO KID
HUNGRY CAMPAIGN, SHARE OUR STRENGTH,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Lisa Davis. Thank you for the opportunity to join you
here today to discuss broad-based categorical eligibility and
how it strengthens SNAP's ability to help working poor families
with children.
My name is Lisa Davis, and I am the Senior Vice President
of Share Our Strength's No Kid Hungry Campaign. Share Our
Strength's mission is to end hunger in the United States and
abroad. And through our No Kid Hungry Campaign, we help connect
children and families who are living in poverty with the
Federal nutrition programs for which they are eligible, and we
advocate to strengthen policies to end hunger.
First, I want to note that broad-based categorical
eligibility is an effective and a practical policy that helps
low-income working families move out of poverty and build
financial security, which is a goal I think we all would
support. I urge you to continue to oppose efforts to restrict
or eliminate it.
SNAP is, by anyone's definition, our nation's most
successful child nutrition program. A robust body of research
reinforces its positive impacts. It reduces food insecurity and
deep poverty. It improves children's health, their education
outcomes, and even their lifetime earnings. Indeed, SNAP is an
investment with an ROI that any corporate executive would envy.
The three points that I want to get across today about
broad-based categorical eligibility are: one, it primarily
benefits working poor families with high living expenses; it is
not an automatic pathway to SNAP benefits, contrary to what you
may hear; and, finally, it has a marginal impact on SNAP
caseloads and benefit costs.
By allowing states to align their eligibility and asset
tests for SNAP with TANF, it strengthens the ability of low-
income working families to get benefits from SNAP, which helps
eliminate and ease a benefit cliff so that if they suddenly are
making just a few dollars over 130 percent of poverty they
don't abruptly lose benefits. It helps them build assets to
weather an unexpected financial storm.
And $9 out of every $10 that go out in SNAP benefits
through BBCE go to households with earned income. This benefits
people who are working.
Let me give you an example. A single mother with two
children who works full-time and earns $12.50 an hour has an
income at about 125 percent of poverty and could receive about
$161 a month in SNAP. Without broad-based categorical
eligibility, if her wages increase by only 50 an hour, her
income would put her above 130 percent of poverty, her family
would lose SNAP benefits, and be about $75 a month worse off in
net assets.
My second point: while broad-based categorical eligibility
conveys eligibility to families and households whose gross
incomes are over 130 percent of poverty, it is not an automatic
pathway. These families still have to go through the regular
SNAP application process, with its rigorous procedures for
documenting income and circumstances. Families can be
categorically eligible for SNAP, but not receive a benefit
because their net income after deductions is simply too high.
Finally, it has a marginal impact on SNAP costs. In a study
earlier this year, the Congressional Research Service
determined that only 4.2 percent of SNAP households have gross
income, before deductions, within that broad-based-categorical-
eligibility range of 131 percent of poverty to 200 percent of
poverty. And studies show that only 0.2 percent of benefits go
to households with net incomes above the poverty line.
In a nation where 12 million of our children are living in
food-insecure households, broad-based categorical eligibility
is a critical support to helping their families connect with
SNAP benefits for food at home and for getting them enrolled in
free school meals.
That access to free school meals is particularly important.
As Congressman Johnson noted, many kids who might lose free
meals through categorical eligibility being eliminated could
still get reduced-price meals. But those limited costs are
really burdensome for families that are trying to balance
housing costs that take up 50 percent of their income,
childcare costs that can run up to $1,000 a month, and work
their way out of poverty.
Finally, I would like to leave you with one final thought:
broad-based categorical eligibility is working exactly as
intended. It encourages and supports work, and it helps low-
income families build financial stability and move towards
self-sufficiency. These are goals that we should all support.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lisa Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lisa Davis, J.D., Senior Vice President, No Kid
Hungry Campaign, Share Our Strength, Washington, D.C.
Protecting Children's Access to School Meals by Maintaining Broad-Based
Categorical Eligibility in SNAP
Chair Fudge, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to testify about the important role broad-based categorical eligibility
(BBCE) in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) plays in
helping working poor families with children. My name is Lisa Davis,
Senior Vice President of Share Our Strength's No Kid Hungry Campaign.
Share Our Strength is an organization committed to ending hunger
and poverty in the United States and abroad. Through our No Kid Hungry
campaign, we help end hunger and food insecurity in America by
connecting children and families to the Federal nutrition programs for
which they are eligible.
My testimony today is divided into two sections: (1) a discussion
of Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility, how it works and who it helps;
and (2) a brief overview of the SNAP program more generally.
Forty million people live in food-insecure households in the United
States, including 12.5 million children. Millions more live paycheck to
paycheck, one emergency away from becoming food-insecure themselves. A
study by the Federal Reserve shows that four in ten Americans couldn't
come up with $400 for an emergency expense without selling something or
borrowing money.\1\ SNAP is a nutritional lifeline for many of these
families, helping to ensure that they can feed their families as they
work toward greater financial stability. It is also important to
recognize that not everyone who is food-insecure qualifies for SNAP;
nationally three in ten individuals (29 percent) estimated to be food-
insecure live in households that have incomes above the eligibility
threshold for SNAP.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2018. Report
on the Economic Well-Being of U.S Households in 2017 (https://
www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2017-report-economic-well-
being-us-households-201805.pdf).
\2\ Feeding America. 2018. Map the Meal Gap 2018, A Report on
County and Congressional District Food Insecurity and County Food Cost
in the United States in 2016 (https://www.feedingamerica.org/sites/
default/files/research/map-the-meal-gap/2016/2016-map-the-meal-gap-
full.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility for SNAP is based upon household income and resources.
To qualify under Federal law, gross income for households, except for
those with an elderly or disabled member, cannot exceed 130 percent of
the Federal poverty level. Additionally, all households must show that
their monthly net income, after deductions, does not exceed 100 percent
of the poverty level. SNAP benefit amounts are based on a household's
size, income and expenses. Benefits phase out gradually as earnings
increase, thus incentivizing participants to work.
Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) is a policy that
provides states the option to align income eligibility and asset limits
for SNAP with the eligibility rules they use in programs financed under
their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant or
state maintenance of effort (MOE) funded benefits. There are varying
income eligibility thresholds within states that utilize the BBCE
option, though no state has a gross income limit above 200 percent of
the Federal poverty guidelines, or $51,500 for a family of four in
2019. Households that qualify for SNAP through BBCE have gross incomes
over the Federal poverty line but must have net incomes at or below 100
percent of poverty after high-cost necessities such as housing,
childcare and health care expenses are deducted from their gross
incomes.
As of October 2018, state leaders in 40 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands have adopted BBCE policies.\3\ Of
these, 33 states, D.C, Guam and the Virgin Islands have adjusted the
gross income eligibility requirements to better reflect the cost of
living in their communities and 37 have adjusted or eliminated the
asset test to prevent low-income families who otherwise qualify from
losing access because they have modest savings or even a reliable
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2018. Broad-
Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) (https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/
sites/default/files/snap/BBCE.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBCE isn't an automatic pathway to SNAP. Categorical eligibility
does not mean that a household will automatically receive SNAP
benefits.\4\ Families must still apply and qualify for benefits through
the regular application process, undergoing rigorous procedures for
documenting applicants' income and complying with other mandatory
policies, such as work requirements and time limits for Able-Bodied
Adults Without Dependents. Thus, households can be categorically
eligible for SNAP but have net income too high to receive a benefit. In
2017, only about 0.2% of SNAP benefits went to households with monthly
disposable incomes above 100% of the Federal poverty line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Congressional Research Services. 2018. Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on Eligibility and Benefits
(https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/
20180411_R42505_202751806b27332231c005186f8adbc99e94df77.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBCE incentivizes work and saving. BBCE provides states with the
flexibility to modestly adjust the gross income and asset limit
thresholds to ease the SNAP income cutoff and provide benefits to
working poor families, thus providing stronger work incentives and a
pathway out of poverty. For example, the higher gross income limits
under BBCE help ease the ``benefit cliff'' for working families with
high expenses and low disposable income, allowing families to gradually
phase off SNAP when earnings increase. It also reduces administrative
costs and complexity for state agencies administering SNAP and
streamlines eligibility across low-income assistance programs.
Similarly, adjusting or eliminating the asset test allows families to
accumulate modest savings to help weather emergencies such as a car
repair, illness or reduced hours.
BBCE Helps Working Poor Families, Seniors and the Disabled
According to a 2012 GAO study that examined SNAP participation data
from 2010, the majority (56 percent) of households eligible for SNAP
under BBCE include at least one child and 65.9 percent of households
include at least one member with earned income. Nearly 28 percent of
such households included a member receiving Social Security benefits,
indicating they are likely to be either age 62 or older or disabled. A
more recent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
(CBPP) demonstrated that about \2/3\ of BBCE-benefits go to households
with gross income less than 150 percent FPL or $38,625 for a family of
four in 2019 while 80 percent of benefits go to families with
children.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Dean, Stacy. 2016. Balancing State Flexibility without
Weakening SNAP's Success (https://www.cbpp.org/food-assistance/
balancing-state-flexibility-without-weakening-snaps-success). Testimony
before the U.S House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Urban Institute found that nearly 70 percent of families with a
gross income of less than 200 percent of poverty experienced a range of
material hardship, including an inability to provide food for their
families, missed rent or mortgage payments, loss of housing, inability
to pay medical bills or unmet medical needs due to costs.\6\ BBCE helps
those families afford the food they need to survive and get back on
their feet, while managing other basic household necessities like rent,
child care, transportation, and health care costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Karpman, Michael, et al., 2018. The Well-Being and Basic Needs
Survey (https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98919/
the_well-being_and_basic_needs_sur
vey_0.pdf). Urban Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some examples of the cost burdens facing low-income
working families in states that have adopted BBCE and how BBCE helps
support those families:
In Iowa, BBCE adjusts the SNAP gross income threshold to 160
percent of the Federal Poverty Limit (FPL), enabling a family
of four to qualify for SNAP with gross annual income between
$33,475 and $41,200. Based on a study by the United Ways of
Iowa, the average household survival budget in 2016 (the latest
data available) for such a family was $56,772, or more than 200
percent of the Federal Poverty Level for a family of four.\7\
Even with the modest resources provided by SNAP, Iowa families
who are eligible for SNAP through BBCE and have net incomes low
enough to receive benefits still struggle to balance the costs
of meeting basic needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Hoopes, Stephanie (PhD). 2018. ALICE: A Study of Financial
Hardship in Iowa (https://www.dropbox.com/s/sqjm47vcyid18po/
18UW_ALICE_Report_IA_Update_Lowres_8.3.18_
FINAL.pdf). United Ways of Iowa.
Average Iowa Household Survival Budget for Family of Four
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monthly Cost Annual Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing $659 $7,908
Child Care $1,031 $12,372
Food $525 $6,300
Transportation $697 $8,364
Health Care $800 $9,600
Technology $75 $900
Miscellaneous $430 $5,160
Taxes $514 $6,168
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. $4,731 $56,772
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine Dan and Karen a married couple with two kids renting
a house just outside of Des Moines, Iowa. Dan works full time
in the deli at the local supermarket and earns $12.30 per hour.
His wife, Karen, is a clerk at a clothing store. She makes
$12.82 per hour but is only scheduled 30 hours per week. Their
kids, Shaun (age 5) and Michael (age 8) eat school breakfast
and lunch most days. While the family's gross income of $45,584
exceeds the Federal SNAP income limit, their net income after
deductions for earned income, housing, child care and medical
expenses is below 100 percent of poverty, so the family
qualifies to receive $22 in SNAP benefits each month because of
BBCE. Shaun and Michael also qualify for free school meals.
Without BBCE the family would be ineligible for SNAP benefits
and the kids would lose access to the free school meal program.
While their children would qualify for reduced price school
meals without BBCE, at 30 per breakfast and 40 per lunch,
those costs would be burdensome.
In Florida, BBCE increases the SNAP gross income threshold to
200 percent of the FPL, enabling a family of four to qualify
for SNAP if their gross annual income is between $33,475 and
$51,500. Based on a study by the United Way of Florida, the
average household survival budget in 2016 (the latest data
available) for such a family was $55,164.\8\ Just as we saw in
Oregon, the SNAP benefits they qualify to receive under BBCE
provides critical help toward meeting their most basic needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Hoopes, Stephanie (PhD). 2018. ALICE: A Study of Financial
Hardship in Florida (http://www.uwof.org/sites/uwof.org/files/2018 FL
ALICE REPORT AND CO PAGES.pdf). United Way of Florida.
Average Florida Household Survival Budget for Family of Four
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monthly Cost Annual Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing $848 $10,176
Child Care $1,024 $12,288
Food $542 $6,504
Transportation $653 $7,836
Health Care $720 $8,640
Technology $75 $900
Miscellaneous $418 $5,016
Taxes $317 $3,804
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. $4,597 $55,164
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Picture Ann and Larry, a married couple renting a house in
Broward County, Florida with their two daughters, Jessica (age
2) and Rachel (age 4). Ann works as a home health care aide and
her husband Larry is a cashier at a local gas station. Both
work full-time and earn $8.46--the minimum wage in Florida.
Their total gross income is approximately $35,276 or 137
percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Without BBCE, they would
be ineligible for SNAP. Because Florida has adopted BBCE, and
Ann and Larry have significant housing and child care expenses,
they can qualify for a maximum monthly SNAP benefit of $108.
Eliminating BBCE Would Cause Hardship
An independent study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
from 2018 shows that approximately two million people, mostly low-
income working-families and seniors, would lose SNAP if BBCE were
eliminated.\9\ While these families have gross incomes or assets
moderately above the Federal SNAP limits, their net incomes are below
the poverty line due to high costs of housing, child care expenses, and
other basic needs. Another recent study by Mathematica Policy Research
reached the same conclusion. Its projection predicted that eliminating
BBCE would lead to 2.1 million households losing food access under
SNAP, including 469,000 (23 percent) households with children.\10\ The
elimination of BBCE would have serious repercussions for those low-
income children and their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Rosenbaum, Dottie. 2018. House Farm Bill's SNAP Changes Are a
Bad Deal for States and Low-Income Households (https://www.cbpp.org/
research/food-assistance/house-farm-bills-snap-changes-are-a-bad-deal-
for-states-and-low-income). Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
\10\ Cunnyngham, Karen. 2018. Simulating Proposed Changes to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Countable Resources and
Categorical Eligibility (https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-
publications-and-findings/publications/simulating-proposed-changes-to-
the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-countable-resources).
Mathematica Policy Research Brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income school-aged children would be hit the hardest. Two
hundred sixty-five thousand low-income children would lose access to
free school meals if their families were no longer eligible for SNAP
benefits.\11\ While some families may remain eligible for reduced-price
meals, even the low cost of reduced-price meals can be a significant
burden on low-income families, especially those with multiple school-
aged children. This has long-term consequences for children; consistent
access to nutrition is linked to cognitive and physical development,
test scores, and long-term health and education outcomes. SNAP and
school meals help children grow up healthy, educated, and more likely
to break the cycle of poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Congressional Budget Office. 2018. H.R. 2 Agriculture and
Nutrition Act of 2018 (https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-07/
hr2_1.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Families and seniors would be penalized for saving modest amounts.
The flexibility afforded to states through BBCE is needed to
effectively respond to the unique financial stresses faced by low-
income families. Without BBCE, low-income families who have saved as
little as $2,251--for a more reliable car, a down payment on an
apartment, health care, or to cover an emergency expense--would have
their SNAP benefits terminated. Building assets helps low-income
families invest in their future and avert devastating financial crises
that could push them deeper into poverty, housing insecurity, and
greater reliance on safety net programs. Reinstating asset limits by
eliminating BBCE would discourage families from saving and undermine a
family's ability to withstand future income shocks.\12\ In fact,
eliminating BBCE would result in some working households losing access
to SNAP and school meals which help to feed their families merely
because they own a modest car to commute to and from work and meet
other vital needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Supra note at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local nonprofits would face increased pressure. Cutting access to
critical food assistance for hardworking and struggling Americans will
strain the resources of local nonprofits and private charities. These
groups are already stretched thin in meeting existing need. They will
be unable to manage the spike in demand for their services if public
food assistance is curtailed.
BBCE Has a Marginal Impact on SNAP Participation and Costs
SNAP's caseloads grew significantly between FY2007 and FY 2013
primarily as a result of more households qualifying for SNAP due to the
recession.\13\ The Economic Recovery Act also included an increase in
benefits of approximately 13.6 percent that was in place through
November 2013. Since FY 2014, SNAP participation and costs have
continued to decline, dropping from a high of 47.6 million participants
in FY 2013 to 38.9 million participants in March 2019. While the number
of states choosing to utilize BBCE over the past decade increased,
expansion of BBCE has contributed minimally to SNAP caseload growth
over that period. A 2019 analysis by the Congressional Research Service
estimates that 85.3 percent of SNAP households without an elderly or
disabled member had gross income below the FPL. Another 10.5 percent
had gross income between 100 percent and 130 percent of poverty and
only 4.2 percent of BBCE eligible households or 529,921, had incomes at
131 percent of poverty and higher.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2019. The Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Categorical Eligibility (https://
fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42054.pdf).
\14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data examining family assets by income also suggests that few
households that qualify for SNAP under BBCE are likely have assets that
exceed Federal asset limits. In 2007, before the Great Recession, only
60 percent of working-age poor families had a checking or savings
account and the median value was $310.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Signe-Mary McKernan, Caroline Ratcliffe, and Trina Williams
Shanks. 2012. Can the Poor Accumulate Assets? (https://www.urban.org/
sites/default/files/publication/25676/412624-Can-the-Poor-Accumulate-
Assets-.PDF). Urban Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A similar study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that
reviewed 24 states utilizing BBCE to raise household gross income
limits concluded that while implementation of BBCE by these states
enabled more households to receive SNAP, the 2008 economic downturn
likely played a more significant role in the SNAP participation
increase in the last decade than BBCE.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2017.
Federal Low-Income Programs: Eligibility and Benefits Differ for
Selected Programs Due to Complex and Varied Rules (https://www.gao.gov/
assets/690/685551.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO's report also found that BBCE increased total SNAP benefit
costs by less than one percent (0.7 percent).\17\ Because SNAP benefits
are calculated based on household size and income and provide greater
benefits to those with fewer means, most BBCE households tend to be
eligible for lower average monthly SNAP benefits, $81 for BBCE
households vs. the average $293 received by all other SNAP
households.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Ibid.
\18\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBCE Streamlines the Benefit Process for States
BBCE has enabled states to simplify and streamline their SNAP
operations, reduce administrative costs, and ensure access for families
in need--particularly low-income working families that are struggling
to make ends meet with limited resources and high costs. GAO found that
BBCE simplifies program rules and the eligibility determination process
for SNAP by creating consistency in income and resource limits across
low-income assistance programs. This streamlining can ease the
administrative burden for states and participants, save resources,
improve productivity, and return administrative focus to essential
program activities.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restricting or eliminating BBCE would not only have a detrimental
impact on the health and economic well-being of millions of struggling
Americans, including children, it would add undue administrative burden
on program administering agencies and staff at the state level.
The bottom line is that SNAP is an effective lifeline to low-income
working families across the country, especially those with children.
BBCE provides states with the flexibility they need to adapt SNAP
eligibility to align with other assistance programs and to address the
unique circumstances and needs of their eligible low-income residents
to encourage and support work and the building of assets to help those
families transition out of poverty. Eliminating or restricting BBCE
will inflict lasting harm on children, families, communities, states,
and the nation as a whole.
SNAP Provides a High Return on Investment
SNAP helps to ensure that families with children who have fallen on
hard times have access to the nutrition they need to get back on their
feet and to grow up healthy and strong. 65% of SNAP households are
families with children, seniors, or people with disabilities. Nearly
\1/2\ (44 percent) of SNAP recipients are children while another 21
percent of recipients are adults who live with those children.\20\
Benefits are not overly generous, averaging to about $1.40 per person
per meal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Supra note at 3. See also Gray, Kelsey Farson, et al., 2016.
Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Households: Fiscal Year 2015 (https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/
characteristics-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-households-fiscal-
year-2015.) prepared for the Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP is the nation's most effective anti-hunger program, serving as
the front line of defense against hunger, food insecurity, and the
long-term detriments they cause.
The program lifted 8.4 million people of poverty in 2015,
reducing the poverty rate from 15.4 to 12.8 percent.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Wheaton, Laura, and Victoria Tran. 2016. Anti-Poverty Effects
of SNAP (https://www.urban.org/research/publication/antipoverty-
effects-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program). Urban Institute.
Its effect was more significant among children, with 3.8
million kids (28 percent) lifted out of poverty by SNAP in
2014.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2017. SNAP Helps
Millions of Children (https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/
snap-helps-millions-of-children).
In addition, SNAP lifted more than two million children out
of deep poverty in 2014.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Ibid.
SNAP reduces food insecurity among high-risk children by 20
percent and improves their health and well-being by 35
percent.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2018. Chart Book: SNAP
Helps Struggling Families Put Food on The Table (https://www.cbpp.org/
research/food-assistance/chart-book-snap-helps-struggling-families-put-
food-on-the-table).
SNAP is an important work support and work incentive program for
the millions of low-income Americans struggling to make ends meet due
to the rising cost of living, lack of affordable housing and childcare
services, and limited access to transportation. Its benefits focus on
those most in need and least able to afford a nutritionally adequate
diet, achieving its core purpose of raising the nutritional standards
of low-income Americans.
Supports Working Families and Encourages Work: The SNAP benefit
formula is structured to encourage and reward work. For every
additional dollar a SNAP recipient earns, his or her benefits decline
by only 24 to 36 , providing families with a strong incentive to work
longer hours or to seek and accept higher paying employment. In fact,
most SNAP participants who can work, do work. Among working-age, non-
disabled adults participating in SNAP in a typical month in mid-2012,
52 percent worked in that month and about 74 percent worked at some
point in the year before or the year after that month.\25\ However,
participants are disproportionately employed in low-wage sales and
service jobs with unpredictable schedules and limited security--such as
cashier, cook, or home nursing aid.\26\ SNAP serves as an important
income support, making it easier for families to afford food as they
earn more and work toward increased financial stability. SNAP also
serves as an important support for low-income veterans who are
unemployed, underemployed or struggling with low-wages or unpredictable
work schedules. Data shows that nearly 1.4 million low-income veterans
received SNAP at some point during the previous year.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Wolkomir, Elizabeth and Lexin Cai. 2019. The Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program Includes Earning Incentives (https://
www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-supplemental-nutrition-
assistance-program-includes-earnings-incentives). Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities.
\26\ Keith-Jennings, Brynne and Vincent Palacios. 2017. SNAP Helps
Millions of Low-Wage Workers: Crucial Financial Support Assists Workers
in Jobs with Low Wages, Volatile Income, and Few Benefits (https://
www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-helps-millions-of-low-wage-
workers). Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
\27\ Keith-Jennings, Brynne and Lexin Cai. 2018. SNAP Helps Almost
1.4 Million Low-Income Veterans, Including Thousands in Every State
(https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-helps-almost-14-
million-low-income-veterans-including-thousands-in). Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Overhead: SNAP is administrated with relatively low overhead
cost and a high degree of accuracy.\28\ About 90 percent of Federal
SNAP spending goes to providing benefits to households for purchasing
food. Of the remaining ten percent, about seven percent is used for
state and Federal administrative costs, including eligibility
determinations, employment and training, nutrition education and anti-
fraud activities. The final three percent is used 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 and for the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Center on Budget and Policy Priories. 2018. Policy Basics:
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (https://www.cbpp.org/
research/policy-basics-the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-
snap).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the program's success is due to the uniform national
benefit structure and rigorous requirements on states and eligible
participants. These features ensure a high degree of program integrity
and maintain the core program focus on providing food assistance for
those who need it most.
Improves Health and Financial Well-Being: Multiple research studies
have demonstrated the crucial role of SNAP in improving the health,
academic performances, and overall well-being of children.\29\ In
addition to improving the health and well-being of children, research
shows that SNAP improves households' financial well-being while
promoting long-term economic mobility and security. It does so by
freeing up available resources for other essential expenses such as
housing, utilities and medical bills.\30\ Accordingly, SNAP
participation reduces the risk of falling behind on rent or mortgage
payments by seven percentage points, utility payments by 15 percentage
points and medical hardship or the risk of forgoing a doctor's visit
due to financial reasons by nine percentage points.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Carlson, Steven and Brynne Keith-Jennings. 2018. SNAP Is
Linked with Improved Nutritional Outcomes and Lower Health Care Costs
(https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-is-linked-with-
improved-nutritional-outcomes-and-lower-health-care). Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities.
\30\ Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore and Lauren Bauer and Greg Nantz.
2016. Twelve Facts About Food Insecurity and SNAP (https://
www.brookings.edu/research/twelve-facts-about-food-insecurity-and-snap/
). Brookings Institution.
\31\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By improving a family's financial well-being, SNAP can help
families build their assets. By building assets, families can make
crucial investments in their future and avert a financial crisis that
could push them deeper into poverty or even lead them to become
homeless. It also helps families avoid accumulating debt, have a better
chance of avoiding poverty, and prevent greater reliance on the
government in old age. In short, SNAP helps families, especially those
with children, meet their immediate nutritional needs and avoid
succumbing to the vicious cycle of poverty.
In the past, Congress and USDA have wisely provided states with the
flexibility they need to ensure that SNAP can adapt to local
circumstances and respond to the needs of underserved and very
vulnerable groups such as children, hardworking-families, veterans, and
seniors.
Conclusion
BBCE is a policy that balances state flexibility with effective
national standards to allow states to better support working poor
families with high living costs such as housing, child care expenses,
medical expenses and other basic needs. If it were eliminated, roughly
two million people, mostly low-income working-families and seniors,
would lose access to SNAP and about 265,000 children would lose access
to free school meals.
Maintaining BBCE under SNAP ensures that low-income working
families can continue to put food on the table while they work to
improve their economic security and transition out of poverty. It also
provides states with the flexibility necessary to meet the food and
nutrition needs of their low-income populations. It is important to
underscore that while BBCE does confer SNAP eligibility to families
with gross incomes modestly above 130 percent of poverty, it does not
automatically grant an individual or family a SNAP benefit. The actual
receipt of SNAP benefits requires their net income to be at or below
100 percent of poverty.
I also can't emphasize enough the consequences for low-income
children if states were to lose their needed flexibility under BBCE.
Loss of access to SNAP for these kids and families would ripple
throughout their lives--eliminating needed nutrition at home and
eligibility for free school meals as well. When children aren't
consistently getting the nutrition, they need to grow up healthy and
strong, it exacerbates all the other problems they face--diminishing
their academic performance, mental and physical health, over-all
wellbeing, and dimming opportunities to escape the cycle of poverty.
We all want our children to grow up healthy and able to achieve
their full-potential, becoming the next generation of teachers,
engineers and innovators, strengthening the economic and security
opportunities of the Unites States. SNAP is a vital investment in the
future of our kids, our communities, and our country.
We urge Congress and the Administration to work alongside
nonprofits, businesses, the faith community, and individuals across the
country to eradicate childhood hunger and poverty in United States by
maintaining and encouraging BBCE options for states in the
administration of SNAP. We look forward to continuing as your partner
in the implementation and strengthening of evidence-based policies and
practices to strengthen child nutrition programs including SNAP, WIC,
National School Breakfast and Lunch, the Summer Food Service Program
and the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you.
Dr. Waxman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ELAINE WAXMAN, M.P.P., Ph.D., SENIOR
FELLOW, INCOME AND BENEFITS POLICY CENTER, URBAN INSTITUTE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. Waxman. Good afternoon, Chair Fudge, Ranking Member
Johnson, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify and share insights from my research on
food insecurity and access to SNAP.
I am a Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute, but the views
expressed in this testimony are my own and should not be
attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or funders.
Despite an improving economy, food insecurity persists at
high levels across the U.S., affecting approximately 14 million
people. In 2018, a National Urban Institute survey found nearly
four in ten non-elderly adults reported that their families
experienced material hardship, such as trouble paying for
housing, utilities, food, or medical care.
SNAP is a critical resource for many families across the
U.S. Although the number of families receiving SNAP benefits
has continued to decline as the economy improves, 36.3 million
people participate in the program.
Research shows that SNAP does exactly what Congress
intended it to do: it decreases food insecurity. SNAP reduces
the prevalence of food insecurity by five to ten percentage
points, including among households with children.
Moreover, SNAP is effective in reducing poverty. Urban
research shows that the program lifted 8.4 million people from
poverty in 2015, and poverty among children decreased by 28
percent.
These data are important to keep in mind when we think
about policy changes that might reduce the number of families
participating in SNAP. Fewer families on SNAP might translate
into greater levels of food insecurity and poverty.
I have been researching challenges facing low-income
families for the last 2 decades, with a particular focus on
food insecurity, family coping strategies, and Federal
nutrition programs. BBCE enjoys widespread support across urban
and rural states and among states with more or less
conservative approaches to safety net programs. Briefly, here
is what the research tells us.
First, the vast majority of households reached through BBCE
are already income-eligible and reflect important populations
we need to assist, such as families who may have slightly
higher incomes and assets and very significant expenses, like
high housing costs, in excess of 50 percent of their income,
medical out-of-pocket expenses, and childcare that allows them
to work.
Data indicate, from the most detailed study we have, that
only 3.1 percent of all SNAP households and 3.4 percent of all
SNAP participants would not meet income guidelines if non-cash
BBCE were eliminated. These households received less than one
percent of SNAP benefits.
Second, although this population is relatively small, they
have important characteristics. They are more likely than other
SNAP-participating households to have children, have earned
income, have higher income, and receive very low benefits.
It is important to be assertive in reducing food insecurity
for all types of families, because it is in reducing food
insecurity that we address health risks at every stage in the
life course. But we particularly worry about food-insecure
households with kids and adolescents.
Food-insecure households with children have higher rates of
fair and poor health, have higher rates of hospitalization;
children have increased risk of asthma and delays in cognitive
development. Adolescents who are food-insecure are at greater
risk for depression and other mental health problems and are
more likely to experience suicidal ideation. Therefore, the
ability to reach vulnerable children and adolescents is one of
the strengths of BBCE.
Third, BBCE supports work among those who are able to do
so, because it helps families who may experience what is
referred to as the benefit cliff as their earnings increase. By
permitting states to raise the gross income limit above 130
percent, BBCE can help mitigate the risk that families who are
working hard may be less well off as earnings increase.
Nearly one in five households who are food-insecure
actually have incomes between 130 and 185 percent of the
Federal poverty level. Many of these individuals live in
households where there are simply not sufficient earnings to
keep pace with family needs and where the cost of living puts
significant pressure on family budgets.
Finally, research shows that low assets are a significant
contributing factor to food insecurity. There has been broad
bipartisan recognition that assets can buffer income shocks and
that vehicles can be essential for maintaining employment,
accessing healthcare, and securing food, especially in rural
areas.
A recent Urban study found that relaxing or eliminating
SNAP asset limits through BBCE increases the number of low-
income households who have a bank account and at least $500
available for unexpected expenses. These findings suggest that
reinstating Federal asset limits would harm family financial
stability.
In summary, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to
share research evidence on SNAP. Our quick tour here suggests
that eliminating or significantly restricting BBCE could
undermine several keys goals: one, to reduce food insecurity;
two, to encourage work and increased earnings; three, to permit
the building of basic assets that can help buffer income shocks
and reduce disparities; and four, to minimize the burden on
states as they prioritize limited resources.
Thank you so much, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Waxman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elaine Waxman, M.P.P., Ph.D.,* Senior Fellow,
Income and Benefits Policy Center, Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The views expressed are my own and should not be attributed to
the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
I thank Gregory Acs, Laura Wheaton, Linda Giannarelli and Nathan
Joo for helpful comments and Fiona Blackshaw and Archana Pyati for help
in preparing this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Importance of Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility in SNAP
Chair Fudge, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to share
insights from my research on food insecurity and issues affecting
access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The views
expressed in this testimony are my own and should not be attributed to
the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Despite an improving economy, food insecurity persists at high
levels across the U.S. In 2017, the USDA reported that approximately 40
million people--about 12.5 percent of the population--were food-
insecure. More recently, the Urban Institute's nationally
representative Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey found that nearly four
in ten nonelderly adults reported that in 2018, their families
experienced material hardship--defined as trouble paying or being
unable to pay for housing, utilities, food, or medical care at some
point during the year--which was not significantly different from the
share reporting these difficulties for 2017.\1\ Among adults in
families with incomes below twice the Federal poverty level (FPL), over
60 percent reported at least one type of material hardship in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Michael Karpman, Stephen Zuckerman, and Dulce Gonzalez,
``Despite Labor Market Gains in 2018, There Were Only Modest
Improvements in Families' Ability to Meet Basic Needs'' (Washington,
D.C.: Urban Institute, 2019), https://www.urban.org/research/
publication/despite-labor-market-gains-2018-there-were-only-modest-
improvements-families-ability-meet-basic-needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP is a critical resource for many families across the U.S.
Although the number of families participating in SNAP has continued to
decline as the economy improves, in March 2019, 36.3 million people in
over 18 million households received SNAP benefits.\2\ Research shows
that SNAP does exactly what it was intended to do--decrease food
insecurity. According to recent research, SNAP reduces the prevalence
of food insecurity by five to ten percentage points, including
households with children.\3\ Moreover, SNAP is an effective antipoverty
tool: in 2015, the program lifted 8.4 million people from poverty and
reduced poverty among children by 28 percent.\4\ These data are
important to keep in mind when we think about policy changes that might
reduce the number of families participating in SNAP; fewer families on
SNAP might translate into greater levels of food insecurity and
poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Data as of June 7,
2019),'' https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource-
files/34SNAPmonthly-5.pdf.
\3\ U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition
Service, Office of Policy Support, ``Measuring the Effect of
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Participation on Food
Security (Summary)'' (Washington, D.C.: USDA, 2013), https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/Measuring2013Sum.pdf; Craig
Gundersen, Brent Kreider, and John V. Pepper, ``Partial Identification
Methods for Evaluating Food Assistance Programs: A Case Study of the
Causal Impact of SNAP on Food Insecurity,'' American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 99, no. 4 (2017): 875-93, https://doi.org/
10.1093/ajae/aax026.
\4\ Laura Wheaton and Victoria Tran, The Antipoverty Effects of the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Washington, D.C.: Urban
Institute, 2018), https://www.urban.org/research/publication/
antipoverty-effects-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Is Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility in SNAP?
Our topic today is one aspect of SNAP eligibility policy: broad-
based categorical eligibility, or BBCE. I'll briefly outline how states
use this SNAP option to confer benefit eligibility on low-income
families.
Generally, people are eligible for SNAP if their gross income is at
or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, and their net
income at or below the Federal poverty guidelines after certain
expenses are taken into account. Households with an elderly or disabled
member do not face a gross-income threshold, but their net income must
not exceed 100 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. Net income is
determined by subtracting allowable deductions from gross income such
as a portion of earned income, dependent care costs, medical expenses
(for households with elderly or disabled members), child support
payments, and shelter expenses exceeding \1/2\ of net income after
other deductions. Households applying for SNAP must also meet certain
other eligibility criteria, such as an asset test. In Fiscal Year 2019,
households without a member who is elderly or has a disability must
have assets of $2,250 or less, and households with such a member must
have assets of $3,500 or less.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Countable assets include cash, resources easily converted to
cash (such as money in checking or savings accounts), and some
nonliquid resources. The value of family homes, retirement and
education savings accounts, and some types of property are not counted
toward the asset limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP households in which all members receive cash benefits from
either Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), or general assistance are categorically eligible for
SNAP and therefore not subject to the Federal income and asset limits.
Categorical eligibility streamlines the application and eligibility
determination process for states and reduces the time devoted to
verifying resources. States also have an option through TANF called
broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) to confer eligibility on a
category of people who receive or are eligible to receive another
noncash benefit or service offered by the state through its Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families/Maintenance of Effort (TANF/MOE) funds.
These TANF/MOE benefits or services that confer BBCE must meet one of
four goals of the TANF block grant: (1) Assisting needy families so
children can be cared for in their own homes, (2) Reducing the
dependency of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work, and
marriage, (3) Preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and (4)
Encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Through the BBCE option, a state may align its asset and income
limits with the TANF noncash benefit program that confers categorical
eligibility. BBCE households must also meet all other SNAP rules and
have net incomes low enough to qualify for SNAP benefits. States may
include households with gross incomes up to 200 percent of the Federal
poverty level, and states vary in their choice of gross income ceiling.
However, households must have net incomes low enough to qualify for a
positive SNAP benefit. One- and two-person households are eligible for
a relatively small minimum monthly benefit: $15 in Fiscal Year 2019 for
the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., with higher levels in
Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ USDA, ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Fiscal
Year (FY) 2019 Maximum Allotments and Deductions,'' updated October 1,
2018, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/FY19-
Maximum-Allotments-Deductions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The design of TANF/MOE programs is up to the state agency, which
must ensure that the program conferring eligibility authorizes
households to receive a benefit or service.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Lizbeth Silbermann (director, Program Development Division,
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), memo to SNAP regional
directors regarding clarification on characteristics of broad-based
categorical eligibility programs, December 27, 2016, https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/clarification-bbce-
memo.pdf. Some states have retained what is known as narrow categorical
eligibility, which means only certain cash and noncash services can
confer categorical eligibility for SNAP to program participants. These
benefits and services, which can include work support, child care,
diversion assistance, transportation, mentoring, and other short-term
assistance, are generally provided to only a small number of people,
according to Laird and Trippe (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBCE is a widely used state option. Forty states, plus the District
of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands use this option, although
they vary in how they apply it.\8\ As of October 2018, the gross income
ceilings used by states and territories electing BBCE were as follows:
ten retained a gross income ceiling of 130 percent of FPG, two used 160
percent of FPG, five used 165 percent of FPG, one used 175 percent of
FPG, eight used 185 percent of FPG, and 17 used 200 percent of FPG Most
states and territories have used BBCE to eliminate asset tests; only
six (Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, and Texas) retain some
type of asset limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ USDA, ``Broad-based Categorical Eligibility,'' updated October
1, 2018, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/
BBCE.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBCE has enjoyed widespread support across urban and rural states,
across all regions of the country, and among states with more and less
conservative approaches to safety net programs. Because such a wide
variety of states and territories have elected to use BBCE, it is
reasonable to conclude that states find it a very important lever for
responding to the challenges facing low-income families and for
streamlining their administrative processes. Because so many states
have built their procedures, information systems, and training around
BBCE, removing or significantly restricting it will likely be costly
and disruptive.
Proposals to narrow or eliminate BBCE have been considered in past
farm bill proposals, including in 2018, but they have not been passed
in final bills. In 2018, an analysis by Mathematica Policy Research
estimated that approximately 2.1 million households would have lost
SNAP eligibility if BBCE had been eliminated.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Karen Cunnyngham, ``Simulating Proposed Changes to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Countable Resources and
Categorical Eligibility'' (Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy
Research, 2018), https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-
findings/publications/simulating-proposed-changes-to-the-supplemental-
nutrition-assistance-program-countable-resources?MPRSource=TCSide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposals to eliminate or restrict BBCE reflect concerns among some
that the implementation of BBCE has moved SNAP away from general
program intent.\10\ However, data about who would be income-ineligible
if BBCE were eliminated indicate that in fact, states are reaching
households that are a high priority for SNAP and that the vast majority
of those with categorical eligibility would still be income-eligible if
BBCE were eliminated. The most detailed analysis of the SNAP caseload
under BBCE was prepared by MPR and shows that only 3.1 percent of all
SNAP households and 3.4 percent of all SNAP individuals would have been
income ineligible if noncash BBCE were eliminated.\11\ Moreover,
households that would have been income ineligible received less than
one percent of SNAP benefits, reflecting that households not meeting
income tests are generally those with higher income, and therefore
receiving lower benefits. This 2014 analysis found that the percentage
of SNAP households that would become income-ineligible if BBCE were
eliminated varies from 12.2 percent in Wisconsin to less than one
percent in California, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Elizabeth Laird and Carole Trippe, Programs Conferring
Categorical Eligibility for SNAP: State Policies and the Number and
Characteristics of Households Affected Final Report (Washington, D.C.:
Mathematica Policy Research, 2014), https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/
our-publications-and-findings/publications/programs-conferring-
categorical-eligibility-for-snap-state-policies-and-the-number-and-
characteristics-of-households-affected.
\11\ Laird and Trippe, Programs Conferring Categorical Eligibility
for SNAP.
\12\ Laird and Trippe, Programs Conferring Categorical Eligibility
for SNAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the use of SNAP BBCE aligns well with the populations
we always think of when we discuss SNAP. Moreover, BBCE helps SNAP
reach households that may have slightly higher income and assets and
very significant expenses, like high housing costs (in excess of 50
percent of income), medical out-of-pocket expenses, and child care.
People who come into SNAP through BBCE reflect important populations we
need to support, and BBCE helps simplify the outreach and eligibility
process for doing so.
Laird and Trippe's 2014 report on categorical eligibility in SNAP
showed that those who would become income ineligible if BBCE were
eliminated have the following important characteristics: they are more
likely than other participating SNAP households to (1) have children,
(2) have earned income, (3) have higher income, and (4) receive very
low benefits. This information helps inform our understanding of what
eliminating or significantly restricting BBCE could mean. First of all,
most SNAP households would still be income eligible. Second, those
households who would likely become income-ineligible disproportionately
are working families with children. It is important to be assertive in
reducing food insecurity for all types of families because it presents
health risks at every stage in the life course, but we particularly
worry about food-insecure households with kids and adolescents. Food
insecure children have higher rates of fair and poor health, have
higher rates of hospitalization, increased risk of asthma, and delays
in cognitive developments.\13\ Many people are less familiar with the
research around teens and food insecurity, but we need to remember that
adolescence is another sensitive developmental period. Unfortunately,
research indicates that adolescents who are food-insecure are at
greater risk for depression and other mental health problems and are
more likely to experience suicidal ideation than other adolescents.\14\
Therefore, the ability to reach vulnerable children and adolescents is
one of the strengths of BBCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ C. Gundersen and J. Ziliak. ``Food Insecurity and Health
Outcomes,'' Health Affairs 34, no. 11 (2015): 1830-39; J.T. Cook, D.A.
Frank, S.M. Levenson, N.B. Neault, T.C. Heeren, M.M. Black, C.
Berkowitz, P.H. Casey, A.F. Meyers, D.B. Cutts, and M. Chilton. ``Child
Food Insecurity Increases Risks Posed by Household Food Insecurity to
Young Children's Health.'' Journal of Nutrition 136, no. 4 (2006):
1073-76.
\14\ K.A. McLaughlin, J.G. Green, M. Alegria, J. Costello, M.J.
Gruber, N.A. Sampson, and R.C. Kessler, ``Food Insecurity and Mental
Disorders in a National Sample of U.S. Adolescents,'' Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 51, no. 12 (2012):
1293-1303; K. Alaimo, C.M. Olson, and E.A. Frongillo, ``Family Food
Insufficiency, but Not Low Family Income, Is Positively Associated with
Dysthymia and Suicide Symptoms in Adolescents,'' Journal of Nutrition
132, no. 4 (2002): 719-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's also useful to understand how BBCE supports priorities for
SNAP that have been a significant part of the policy discussion in
recent years--for example, how can SNAP support work among those who
are able to do so, including these working families with children. BBCE
offers an important safeguard to those families who are working and may
experience what we refer to as a benefit cliff as their earnings
increase. Because SNAP provides for a 20 percent disregard of earnings
when calculating benefits and because benefit levels phase out as
incomes rise, the benefit cliff in SNAP is not as dramatic as may be
experienced in other programs. But we still worry about low-income
working families who may have experienced small increases in earnings
and/or savings and subsequently have fewer resources for their food
budget because they lose eligibility for SNAP. As I mentioned in the
beginning of these remarks, working families across the country
continue to struggle to make ends meet and often find themselves
trading off between food and other basic needs, such as housing,
utilities and medicine and even modest benefits can make an important
difference. By permitting states to raise the gross income limits above
130 percent up to a ceiling of 200 percent of FPL, SNAP can help
mitigate the potential risk that families who are working hard to
increase their earnings may be less well off as earnings increase.
An example is helpful to put the idea of the benefit cliff in real
terms. As previously mentioned, under Federal rules, SNAP households
without elderly or disabled members must have monthly gross income at
or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty line. A household whose
income exceeds that level are not eligible and could lose substantial
SNAP benefits from a small increase in earnings. For example, a single
mother with two children working full time at $12.75 an hour would
receive about $96 a month from SNAP, making up about four percent of
her total monthly income. If her hourly wage increased by just 50 (or
$86 a month), lifting her income slightly above 130 percent of FPL
($2,252 for a family of three in Fiscal Year 2019), the family would
become ineligible for SNAP under the Federal income eligibility cut-
off. As a result, the household's loss of SNAP benefits would actually
leave the family worse off; their total monthly resources would decline
by about $10 per month. While this issue affects a small share of SNAP
households, it can be a significant hardship for those who are
affected, just when they are making strides to improve their economic
circumstances.
The categorical eligibility option allows states to lift the gross
income limit to further smooth this the benefit cliff. In our example
here, under BBCE, a 50 raise would reduce the family's SNAP benefit by
only $31 a month (to about $65), resulting in a monthly increase in
resources of $55 per month.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ This analysis assumes the median copayment of $77 that states
required for their child care assistance programs in 2018 for a family
of three at the poverty level and with one kid in child care as well as
a shelter cost of $934. These assumptions are based off the most recent
National Women's Law Center report ``Overdue for Investment: State
Child Care Assistance Policies 2018,'' https://nwlc-
ciw49tixgw5lbab.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/NWLC-State-
Child-Care-Assistance-Policies-2018.pdf and median shelter expenses in
2017 consistent with previous analysis done by the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities of 2017 SNAP Quality Control data for working
families earning at least $500 a month with three members, including
two children, and inflated to Fiscal Year 2019 dollars. Most up to date
deductions from Food and Nutrition Service used to calculate SNAP
benefits. For more see https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/
eligibility#What%20deductions%20are%20allowed%20in%20SNAP?. It should
also be noted that the example family is now in the phaseout range of
the EITC and that earnings are reduced by payroll taxes, exacerbating
the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This example helps us understand how BBCE in SNAP can support and
encourage work. It is also important to recognize that the risk of food
insecurity is not confined to those with the lowest gross incomes; we
know from the annual Map the Meal Gap analysis that nearly one in five
food-insecure households actually have incomes between 130 and 185
percent of FPL.\16\ Many of these individuals live in households where
there are simply not sufficient earnings to keep pace with family needs
and where the costs of living put significant pressure on family
budgets. So BBCE can help us make progress on reducing food insecurity
in this vulnerable segment of the population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Feeding America, ``Map the Meal Gap: Executive Summary''
(Chicago: Feeding America, 2019), https://www.feedingamerica.org/sites/
default/files/2019-05/2017-map-the-meal-gap-executive-summary_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teens participating in a series of focus groups conducted by Urban
shared their own experiences with what earning a little above the SNAP
income guidelines can mean for families. One girl remarked:
``Personally, I don't think that food stamps is available for everyone
that actually needs them. Because like my mom, they won't give her
them, because she makes over the amount. But it doesn't really seem
like it, because her whole paycheck will go to rent and utilities.'' A
second girl responded: ``That's the same with my mom . . . because my
mom applied for it, and she put me and my brother and her on it, and we
only got $31 per [month] . . . because she makes too much. And then
like 2 months later, they took it away.''
Now, let's turn to the issue of assets in low-income households and
how eliminating asset tests can achieve some important objectives. As
mentioned previously, the opportunity to relax or eliminate asset has
been taken up by a majority of states. There has been broad bipartisan
recognition that assets can act as a buffer against income shocks and
that vehicles can be essential for maintaining employment, accessing
health care and securing food, especially in rural areas. Research
shows that low assets is a significant contributing factor to food
insecurity.\17\ Thus, the flexibility afforded through BBCE offers a
mechanism for helping to address an underlying risk factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap 2019 (Chicago: Feeding
America, 2019), https://www.feedingamerica.org/sites/default/files/
2019-05/2017-map-the-meal-gap-full.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent study by my colleagues at the Urban Institute examined the
impact of relaxing or eliminating SNAP asset limits through BBCE and
found that this option increases low-income households' savings (eight
percent more likely to have at least $500) and participation in
mainstream financial markets (five percent more likely to have a bank
account). It also reduces SNAP program churn (26 percent).\18\ SNAP
churn refers to the exit and re-entry back into SNAP within a short
time period, which may happen because of changes in household
circumstances but can also happen because of administrative practices.
Taken together, relaxed asset limits increase households' financial
security and stability by increasing savings and reducing benefit
fluctuations, and they can decrease administrative program costs when
fewer people cycle on and off the program. The findings suggest that
states with SNAP asset limits can improve family financial well-being
by relaxing them and that reinstating Federal SNAP asset limits will
harm family financial stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``The Unintended Consequences of SNAP Asset Limits.'' Caroline
Ratcliffe, Signe-Mary McKernan, Laura Wheaton, and Emma Kalish. July
26, 2016. http://www.urban.org/research/publication/unintended-
consequences-snap-asset-limits and ``Asset Limits, SNAP Participation,
and Financial Stability.'' Caroline Ratcliffe, Signe-Mary McKernan,
Laura Wheaton, Emma Kalish, Catherine Ruggles, Sara Armstrong,
Christina Oberlin, June 2016. http://www.urban.org/research/
publication/asset-limits-snap-participation-and-financial-stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding the larger context of racial asset disparity in the
U.S. is useful for thinking about asset tests in benefit programs.
While the majority of SNAP participants in the U.S. are white, SNAP is
an important support to families of color because of persistently low
income and assets in these communities. Eliminating SNAP asset tests
may also help us to begin to address the striking disparity in assets
across racial and ethnic groups in the U.S., which is important for
promoting a more robust economy and inclusive prosperity for everyone.
The racial wealth gap in the U.S. is large: the median white family has
ten times the wealth of the median African American family and eight
times the wealth of the median Hispanic family. So for every $10 a
white family has in wealth, African American families have only $1.
Families of color are not getting the same chances to catch-up in
terms of their wealth. The future majority population of our country--
families of color--are not on a firm wealth building path. As of 2011,
over \1/2\ of children younger than one belong to a community of color.
These children are critical for our future, yet wealth disparities have
worsened over the past 50 years.\19\ These very profound issues require
a host of efforts beyond the scope of this hearing. But elimination of
asset tests in public programs is one basic foundational step that can
help lay the groundwork for a better economic future for all of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Signe-Mary McKernan, Caroline Ratcliffe, C. Eugene Steuerle,
Caleb Quakenbush, and Emma Kalish, ``Nine Charts about Wealth
Inequality in America (Updated),'' Urban Institute, last updated
October 5, 2017. https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-
charts/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Is SNAP So Important to Low-income Households and Communities?
One of the most attractive features of SNAP is that it supports the
ability of families to participate in the mainstream economy by
boosting their purchasing power in retail stores, farmers markets and
other authorized venues that sell food. Families I interview in the
course of my research emphasize how important SNAP benefits are in
securing the kinds of food they need. At Urban, we have conducted focus
groups with many adolescents facing food insecurity and the intense
stigma they feel around not having enough food is striking. They always
emphasize how important SNAP is in their household in helping make ends
meet and how it allows their families to experience the dignity of
shopping for food just as their better off peers do. For example, a
girl in Illinois related her own family's experience with SNAP: ``It's
really helpful for a lot of families. We had a [SNAP Electronic
Benefits Transfer] card like that for a while. It takes stress off of a
difficult situation because you know where your next meal will come
from.''
That purchasing power has an important impact on the economic
health of our communities. A new study from the Economic Research
Service released in May 2019 helps us to further understand the
importance of SNAP to local economies, especially those in rural
areas.\20\ The analysis shows that SNAP redemptions had a positive
average impact on county-level employment from 2001 to 2014 in nonmetro
counties, translating to about 0.4 additional job per $10,000 of
additional SNAP redemptions. The impacts of SNAP redemptions during and
immediately after the Great Recession (2008-10) were even greater, an
additional $10,000 of SNAP redemptions led to about 1.0 additional job
on average in nonmetro counties and about 0.4 additional job in metro
counties. Moreover, during the Great Recession, the impacts per dollar
of SNAP redemptions were greater than impacts of other Federal or state
government transfer payments combined and greater than the impacts of
all Federal Government spending combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ John Pender, Young Jo, Jessica E. Todd, and Cristina Miller,
The Impacts of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Redemptions on
County-Level Employment, Economic Research Report 263 (Washington,
D.C.: USDA, 2019), https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/93169/
err-263.pdf?v=1509.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, I am pleased to be asked to submit this testimony to
assist the Subcommittee in drawing on the research evidence base in
evaluating the potential impacts of eliminating or restricting BBCE.
Research tells us that SNAP is a very effective program; as such,
proposed changes must be carefully evaluated as to how they may enhance
or reduce the ability to address food insecurity. The evidence we have
discussed today also suggests that eliminating or significantly
restricting BBCE could in fact undermine several key goals for the
program: to reduce food insecurity, to encourage work and increased
earnings, to permit the building of basic assets that can help buffer
income shocks and reduce disparities across the U.S., and to minimize
the burden on states as they prioritize their limited resources.
Exhibit 1
Figure 1. States Opting for SNAP Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility as
of October 2018
(States opting for BBCE are shaded in [gray])
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as of October 2018.
Exhibit 2
Median Family Wealth by Race/Ethnicity, 1963-2016
Source: Urban Institute calculations from Survey of Financial
Characteristics of Consumers 1962 (December 31). Survey of
Changes in Family Finances 1963, and Survey of Consumer
Finances 1983-2016.
Notes: 2016 dollars. No comparable data are available between
1963 and 1983. Black/Hispanic distinction within nonwhite
population available only in 1983 and later.
The Chair. Thank you all very much for your testimony.
And we will begin with our questions. Members will be
recognized for questioning in the order of seniority for
Members who were here at the beginning of the hearing. After
that, Members will be recognized in order of arrival.
And I know that we may be coming close to votes within the
next 45 minutes or so, so I am going to now yield to Mr.
McGovern, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much.
And let me, first of all, say that this notion that somehow
people are clamoring to be poor enough to be eligible for SNAP
is laughable. Just for the record so people understand this,
the average SNAP benefit is about $1.40 per person per meal.
You can't even buy a cup of coffee for that.
We should be talking about how you expand that benefit, and
instead we are talking about how we can throw people off of the
benefit. And I just find that to be terribly discouraging,
especially knowing the fact that there are close to 40 million
people in this country who don't know where their next meal is
going to come from.
If you want to talk about defrauding the Federal
Government, I mean, we ought to take a good look at defense
contractors and all the cost overruns. We ought to look at
corporations who don't pay any taxes, who exploit loopholes, or
who intentionally deceive the Federal Government about what
they are. Or look at the pharmaceutical companies, who are
ripping off consumers every single day. Instead, we hear from
my friends on the other side of the aisle, ``Oh, that the real
culprits are poor people in this country.''
Ms. Davis, in your testimony, you list examples in Iowa and
Florida where income limits are described as, ``not enough to
meet a family's basic needs,'' which is where SNAP comes in to
play an important role. Massachusetts, where I am from, is at
200 percent of the Federal poverty line and is also known to
have a higher cost of living than a lot of other states in this
country. What do you believe the impact would be in states like
mine if broad-based categorical eligibility were to go away?
And I also want to get back to the point that Mr. Johnson
raised about kind of saying everybody be happy, don't worry
about kids losing their free school breakfasts and lunches. I
wonder if you could talk about what the impact on that would
be. And, also, the fact that reduced lunches and breakfasts, if
you have multiple kids in a school at the same time, actually
add up to quite a lot of money.
Ms. Lisa Davis. Right. Thank you, Congressman, for your
question.
Let me say first that eliminating broad-based categorical
eligibility is a policy that is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
The result would be short-term savings but long-term costs in
terms of increased medical costs, poorer educational outcomes,
and for many of the kids who would be impacted, less of a
chance to move to better economic stability and opportunity.
We look at the challenges facing low-income families, and,
in my role, I speak to many of them across the country. I have
yet to meet a mom or dad that doesn't want to work. In fact,
most of those that I meet are working sometimes two or three
jobs. The challenge for many of them is that the costs that
they are paying for housing for transportation and childcare
outpace, the growth outpaces their incomes.
Mr. McGovern. Right.
Ms. Lisa Davis. One of the benefits of broad-based
categorical eligibility is it eases that cliff when families
start to make a little bit more. And I think that is an
important policy that incentivizes work and helps provide a
pathway out of poverty.
In Massachusetts, in New York, in Montana, where I am from,
housing costs are very significant and often consume more than
50 percent of a family's income. And so, as a nation, instead
of continuing to argue about whether poor people want to work
or not--there is evidence of that--we need to be thinking about
how we can do what Dr. Davis is doing in Mississippi and craft
supports that make it easier for them to work and to work up
and to meet their transportation, housing, and childcare needs.
And that is the conversation we ought to be having.
Mr. McGovern. Right. I appreciate that.
And you point out another important fact, and that is, the
vast majority of people who are able to work who are on SNAP
actually do work.
Talk to me a little about the school breakfast and lunch
issue.
Ms. Lisa Davis. Right. There is a very significant body of
research that shows the impact that children getting the
nutrition that they need has on things like school performance.
And in many school districts, on days that they are testing,
they will bring in lunch--or bring in breakfast--excuse me. And
I know my own kids, we get a call the night before reminding me
to feed them too, because they recognize that correlation.
Those meals are really important to making sure that kids
can be present, that they can learn, and that they can perform.
And getting enough nutrition, whether through SNAP at home or
school meals, helps make sure that kids have better short- and
long-term healthcare outcomes and that they have higher
lifetime earnings.
And so it is really important that we look at all of these
programs to make sure that every child in this nation, no
matter his or her circumstances, can get three meals a day.
Because of the way that SNAP interacts with school meals,
if a child's family receives SNAP, he or she is automatically
directly certified for free school meals. If broad-based
categorical eligibility were eliminated, the Congressional
Budget Office estimates that about 265,000 kids would lose that
automatic free eligibility.
Some of them may be eligible for reduced meals, but, as you
pointed out, even though those sums seem really insignificant
to us, $25 to $30 a month is a lot to a family that doesn't
have enough resources to meet all of their needs as it is.
Mr. McGovern. Right. Thank you very much.
The Chair. Thank you.
Ranking Member Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thanks very much.
Mr. Barnes, you talked about 24,000 students who might lose
school meals, or who would lose school meals, coming from
struggling families.
My assumption--and so I wanted to give you an opportunity
to push back if it is wrong--is that the vast majority of those
families would not have substantial savings or other financial
assets. Does that sound about right?
Mr. Barnes. That can be concluded.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. Do we have any idea how many of those
24,000 students come from families that are above 130 percent
of the Federal poverty line?
Mr. Barnes. I don't have that number, but I can get that to
you.
Mr. Johnson. Do you have any idea how many of them would be
more than 185 percent above the Federal poverty line?
Mr. Barnes. Same response. I don't have that exact number,
but I can get that to you.
[The information referred to is located on p. 114.]
Mr. Johnson. Yes. I think what I am trying to bring to the
fore here is that, if your state is like the rest of our
country, 99.9 percent of those kids will continue to qualify
through the eligibility standards of free and reduced school
lunch program for free and reduced school lunches, and, in
fact, 97 percent of them would continue to qualify for free
school lunches.
This is perhaps not the doomsday scenario that some may be
concerned about.
Mr. Barnes. Well, if they end up losing their SNAP benefit,
then school lunch may be the only meal that they get to have in
a day.
Mr. Johnson. And absolutely they should have that school
lunch. Ninety-nine percent of them will continue to qualify or
be eligible for that program.
Now, there may be an additional bit of paperwork. I mean,
my family--certainly, growing up, I was on free and reduced
school lunches for the entirety of my K-12 experience. And I
have seen that paperwork, and I understand what that means for
a family to sit down and fill it out. But 99 percent of kids
would continue to qualify. I just want to make sure that comes
to the fore.
I also want to make sure that we talk a little bit about--
there has been some allegation that there is great cynicism or
distrust on this side of the dais. But, I mean, let's be
honest. We all know that most people are really honest and that
some people, a minority, will take advantage of any program, of
any system.
I mean, that is why we use income tests, right? Nobody here
is advocating to get rid of income tests, because we realize we
want the integrity of a system that targets assistance for the
people who need it.
Let's be honest. We have audit functions for income taxes,
for property taxes. We want to make sure that we don't just
trust people to pay their fair share but that, rather, we have
a system that gives us confidence in the integrity of those tax
systems.
And I just want to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts
that I am interested in working with you to root out waste,
fraud, and abuse wherever it is. And I have sponsored
legislation that would improve defense acquisition, because I
agree, that is not a perfect system. And I have supported
legislation that would drive down pharmaceutical costs, because
I agree with you, that system is not perfect. And I am
interested in making sure that tax cheats and tax frauds do do
time in jail if they are guilty.
And so, in the same way that we want to find accountability
and integrity in those areas, it only makes sense that we
should try to find it in our social safety net programs as
well. They are too important for us to not have faith that they
are helping the families who most need that assistance.
Now, there are allegations seemingly every day on the floor
of the House that my party doesn't authentically care about
poor people. And as somebody who grew up poor, I always find
that a little hard to stomach.
And so, Dr. Davis, I want to give you an opportunity to
tell us, why did you get into your line of work? Why do you
show up every day? And what is the motivation in your heart,
sir, for the reforms that your state is making?
Dr. John Davis. Human services has been my business all my
life. Actually, I have been with the department for 28 years,
and I started as a social worker. I was an eligibility worker,
so on and so forth.
What I recognize is that helping people to become eligible
for a program is one thing; to help an individual to find self-
sustainability and what they want to do in life, instead of me
telling them what to do, means a whole lot more.
The BBCE issue certainly is important, but it is certainly
just a symptom of a bigger issue. If we truly want to help
people, we need to be about helping the person and the family
as a whole.
And so that is what motivates me every day, sir, to make
sure that we, as an agency, in the state that is the poorest in
the nation, who has a lot of people who are eligible for the
program, to make sure that I give them a hand up and not just a
handout.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, sir.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you.
And I would like to ask the Ranking Member if he could
provide us with the data or the information that says to us
that 99 percent of all of these children would still qualify
for free and reduced lunch.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, absolutely. We will make sure to provide
that to the staff for entry into the record.
[The information referred to is located on p. 109.]
The Chair. Excellent. Thank you so much.
And I agree that most people are honest, except for the
person that you praised when we started this hearing, Mr.
Undersander.
I would--sir, I have to move on, so----
Mr. Johnson. Madam Chair----
The Chair. I know you want to respond.
Mr. Johnson. I just want one sentence, ma'am.
This gentleman told the truth. He didn't commit a single
act of fraud. All he did was tell the truth in the application.
It is the application that was flawed, not his answers.
The Chair. Ms. Adams, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Johnson, for holding today's hearing.
And thank you to our witnesses for your testimony.
In December, the President signed into law a bipartisan
farm bill which many of us here helped to negotiate in good
faith. Months went into refining the language and coming to an
agreement which received historic support in both chambers.
Yet, the Administration is again threatening to circumvent
Congressional intent, this time to roll back categorical
eligibility and to take food assistance away from children,
families, veterans, disabled, and older Americans.
My State of North Carolina uses the flexibility of broad-
based categorical eligibility to ensure they are reaching those
who need the help the most. More than 98,000 North Carolinians
and 35,000 children would lose food assistance, including
school meals for children, if this flexibility is eliminated.
In Mecklenburg County, where my district is, more than
10,000 people, including 47,000 children, would lose access to
benefits. These are mostly working families with high childcare
costs or housing costs and seniors. And that is not acceptable.
Ms. Davis, as a mother, a grandmother, and teacher for 40
years, I am concerned with the effects that this change would
have on our nation's children. And I am strongly opposed to a
similar change in the farm bill, because, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, it would take school meals away
from 265,000 children nationwide. Based on my state's data, it
would take meals away from 35,000 children in North Carolina,
and almost 5,000 of those are in my county.
Can you speak to the importance of SNAP and school meals
for children and their families, including how food assistance
programs contribute to long-term health and financial well-
being?
Ms. Lisa Davis. Absolutely. And thank you for the question.
Ensuring that all of our nation's children, no matter what
their circumstance, have the opportunity to reach their full
potential is one of our most fundamental values.
And when we look at the research on SNAP and school meals,
both breakfast and lunch, what we find is that they improve
children's short- and long-term physical and mental health; for
younger children, brain development. Children who are not
experiencing food insecurity are less likely to be
hospitalized; they have better healthcare outcomes.
And other studies show that all of this and the education
impacts of kids being disciplined less frequently, having
better school attendance, performing better on tests, leads to
an 18 percent increase in their likelihood of graduation and
leads to increases in lifetime earnings as well.
The health impacts of SNAP and of school meal programs on
kids are very well-documented. And some studies show that there
are medical cost savings of $1,500 to $2,500 a year for folks
who are no longer food-insecure.
Ms. Adams. Thank you.
Lieutenant Governor Barnes, I am concerned, as well, about
the unnecessary administrative burdens that this potential rule
would impose.
As Lieutenant Governor, you are involved directly with the
state and local agencies that would be saddled with the
increased paperwork and duplicative processing that would
result. Could you outline difficulties that eliminating this
eligibility would cause for administrators, including the
increased need to verify assets?
Mr. Barnes. Yes. Thank you.
And I think that is one of the things that comes up a lot,
is how often do we need to replicate government functions. If
we can just do it in one fell swoop or if we can make sure that
children are taken care of with one application process versus
another, why create more bureaucracy, to use an argument that
would support your line of thinking on this side of the aisle.
And, as well, I want to clarify, too, about the children,
because you said 99.9 percent. I would be so bold as to say 100
percent of children don't get to decide the financial stability
of their own household. With that being said, if they do lose
SNAP benefits but still have free or reduced lunch, again, is
it fair to those students to only have access to food for
breakfast and lunch at school but not in the home?
And when it comes to the topic of, again, more
applications, like, think about how much time that cuts out
from a family where a person needs to go find a job. If a
parent has to fill out more and more applications, has to go to
a county building to try to register for benefits, that cuts
out on productivity time where they could be searching for a
job or actually working.
Ms. Adams. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Conaway, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate that.
I appreciate our witnesses' testimony, much of which
supports the idea that we should, in fact, have a SNAP program,
and we all agree with that. But that is not really what we are
talking about this morning.
We have a SNAP program. It is important, and we are going
to keep it. The issue is, how do we administer that program
that is fair to the folks who need the benefits and is also
fair to the taxpayers?
And so I guess the question would be: should we have an
asset test? Is there any real reason to have that? I think
there is. Yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
were offended by a fellow who had well beyond the asset test
but still qualified under this broad-based categorical
eligibility deal.
If we have an asset test, why would we not update the way
outdated levels of assets that are in the current law, update
those for 2019, and then actually enforce that asset test?
It is not a matter of taking the benefits away from folks
who meet the requirements; it is making sure that those scarce
resources go to the ones who need it the most.
Dr. Davis, should, in fact, we have an asset test, and
should that asset test be enforced, and should it be verified
at the point of application?
Dr. John Davis. I agree that we should have an asset test,
and the reason being because that allows our staff, who are
more than just eligibility staff--you have to remember, if we
are looking at families holistically, we should be more like
navigators, helping individuals to get to the resources they
are eligible for on the front end so that they won't need us on
the back end when they become successful.
The asset test could be an opportunity for us to dig a
little bit deeper into helping that individual find that
sustainability and self-sufficiency or that family as a whole
do that. Using our Families First resource centers, using our
staff to understand, if they do have resources, how in fact can
we build on those resources, how in fact can we build on that
income, how can we help them find a livable wage.
It allows our staff to work closely with that individual to
help them through the process.
Mr. Conaway. As a part of those assets that a family has,
would it be appropriate to exclude from the asset test some
level of liquid assets, cash, that would allow that family to
buffer the normal ins and outs of what goes on in a family and
exclude those assets from that asset test? Would that be handy?
Dr. John Davis. We had an incident in Mississippi--we had
the Gulf oil spill in 2008, and then we did away with the
waiver for BBCE, and then we brought it in. And so we had
individuals who were fishermen and worked in canneries who had
saved money all of their career and then didn't have a job, and
we felt that by allowing BBCE, that that would allow them to
come on to the programs.
One of the things that we failed to do, though, once we
helped them become eligible for that program through
disallowing those resources, we forgot that these individuals
needed help in bigger ways. They had bigger barriers than just
having too many resources. They needed help and assistance in
finding other jobs, finding personal and professional
development opportunities, helping them to be empowered to
become who they want to be if they can't be fishermen, if they
can't work in a cannery.
It goes across the board, though, in any job opportunities,
that we as an agency have to work with an individual, finding
through sector strategies those opportunities for livable-wage
jobs, as I keep saying.
Mr. Conaway. Yes.
Well, Ms. Davis, you described the process that was
included in the House version of the SNAP program, part of the
farm bill that came out of this Committee, sought to spend
significant resources to the states to allow them to do just
that, that very thing.
Whether it is the income test or the asset test, Dr. Davis
and Ms. Waxman and Governor Barnes all talked about families
who have just above the 130 or whatever that number is. Rather
than relying on a loophole and exploiting a loophole, wouldn't
it be better to have a fulsome conversation about what the
number should be? Is 130 the right number? Is 150 the right
number? Is 200 the right number?
Let's have those kind of conversations as opposed to
defending a loophole that allows some families in America to be
treated differently than a family in another state in exactly
the same circumstances is being treated. How is it fair for
folks in Massachusetts to make 200 percent of poverty and folks
from Texas make only 160?
I would think that having conversations about the specifics
of the test, if those were bad, if those were wrong, let's have
that conversation. But let's quit talking about constantly
exploiting loopholes--Mr. McGovern hates loopholes for the tax
side. Let's quit exploiting loopholes as a public policy in
this regard.
The Chair. Thank you.
Ms. Schrier, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schrier. I would like to just thank our witnesses for
being here today. This is such an important topic, categorical
eligibility, and making sure that families who are already on
the edge and in need don't have additional hoops to jump
through in order to make sure that families and children get
food. Again, $1.40 per person per meal.
Then this conversation turned to a conversation about
loopholes, and I feel now pulled into the conversation and
eager to address it. Because there are loopholes in a lot of
places, and I think that we need to decide which ones to
address based on a benefit and risk ratio.
And so I challenge some of my colleagues who are so
reluctant to close loopholes in a Tax Code that gives
tremendous benefit to the wealthiest and to corporations, and,
frankly, if we just closed a couple of those loopholes, we
would have no problem finding $1.40 per meal for our kids or
for school lunches.
And then there is this other group of loopholes that we
talk about a lot which is the loopholes in purchasing a weapon.
And on that one, I would say, what is the cost? If you don't
close those loopholes, then people can get a hold of a gun who
could do our children harm or do themselves harm.
And so then if we talk about the costs of closing those
loopholes, if you do close those loopholes and it becomes more
difficult to get a gun, for example, the cost is only a couple
more days of waiting, but the benefit could be saved lives. The
cost to a taxpayer is simply that they pay a fair share of
taxes.
But, in this case, the cost of closing this so-called
loophole, which isn't really a loophole--this is just
eliminating paperwork--we already know, because we heard in
this Committee, that the fraud rate in this program is less
than one percent. The cost of that is that kids and low-income
working families may not get the food that they need in school,
at home, or over the summer.
And so I thought I would paint a picture of this in
Washington State. Broad-based categorical eligibility helps
more than 38,000 families in Washington meet eligibility
requirements for SNAP, and these provide assistance for
children and adults to access nutritious foods. And we might
talk about that in a minute, on the difference between
nutritious and non-nutritious foods.
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services
conducted an analysis in 2019 that found that lowering the SNAP
income limit from 200 percent to 130 percent of the Federal
poverty level would eliminate SNAP benefits for approximately
67,000 low-income working individuals.
By eliminating that, over 17,000 Washington students would
no longer qualify for free school meals, and there would be
additional funding lost from the National School Breakfast
Program. And with that, with fewer students participating free
school meals, fewer schools would be able to offer other
nutrition programs like the Summer Meals Program, which is
available in communities where more than 50 percent of the
student population qualifies for free or reduced-price meals.
And so I wanted to just put that clarity on.
And then, Lieutenant Governor Barnes, I just was
wondering--and thank you for your testimony--if you could
comment on the negative impact Wisconsin schools would face if
they lost a sizable amount of the annual funding dedicated to
the school meals program.
Mr. Barnes. Thank you.
Our schools in Wisconsin are already significantly burdened
from funding issues of the previous Administration, so it is
our goal to place as few burdens on them as possible. And if
this is one area where we can make a difference, we should do
it.
And back to the loopholes conversation, we want to close as
many loopholes as possible. I get it; I am with everybody on
that part of the conversation. There is no perfect system. If
there was, poverty wouldn't even be an issue. We wouldn't be
having this conversation.
But when it comes to schools and children, the biggest loss
is not just in dollars and cents; it is in student
productivity. It is about students who were showing up to
school on an empty stomach, who were having a hard time
learning, end up having all sorts of behavioral issues, missed
time out of school, end up suspended, whatever the case may be.
And it also creates barriers for success for them in future
life if they have trouble learning, if they find themselves
having to be disciplined as a result of poverty, just to put it
very plainly.
And I think that is the most important cost that we need to
think about, not just dollars and cents. And that also has a
long-term cost, because too many of these children who are
living in poverty, who have food insecurity, unfortunately,
those are the same children that we see ending up in our
criminal justice system.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
I am going to ask one more super-quick question that might
turn into an observation.
Forty-three states have chosen to do broad-based
categorical eligibility. That means that very few others have
not. Mississippi is one of them.
I know, as a pediatrician, that food insecurity and hunger
does lead to later obesity. If you have a moment to comment on
obesity rates in Mississippi and whether that might be tied to
your state's decision to limit access to school nutrition
programs and SNAP categorical eligibility.
Dr. John Davis. We understand that it is more important for
good choices, making healthy choices, helping the family
holistically. When we talk about BBCE or the elimination
thereof in the State of Mississippi, we, too, believe that it
is our job, as state workers, as employees of the Department of
Human Services, to work closely with that family to eliminate
the barriers that have caused them to be eligible for the
program to begin with, whether that be through----
The Chair. Thank you, Dr. Davis. I hate to interrupt you,
but the gentlelady's time has expired.
Dr. John Davis. I am sorry.
The Chair. Mr. Bacon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your
organizing this hearing today. And I appreciate the testimony.
It has been a good learning experience.
First, just being new to hearing about Mr. Undersander, as
a minimum, hearing about his situation and the case, that this
shows that there is a need for clearer standards. It is all
right to say we want to review those standards to make sure
taxpayers are being protected while we are providing a quality
safety net.
So I just think it is worthy. It is just an example that
taxpayers do want to have assurance that their money is being
spent right while we are guaranteeing a safety net. Hearing
about his case, I think it is helpful.
Also, some of the comments made earlier, I find some of
them were straw-man arguments, because no one on either side of
the aisle here have said people are clamoring for SNAP.
Sometimes, there are words put in other people's mouth that
were never said.
And no one here is anti-poor. We just want to make sure
that we have a quality safety net that works and that also
protects the taxpayers. And as the Ranking Member said earlier,
we all support it, we all support SNAP. And a safety net
program is vital. In our nation, we believe in hard work, we
like competition because it makes for a better society. And a
system of free markets work. It has lifted more people out of
poverty than any other system ever made. However, a humane
society has a safety net.
And so the two things I get from this is that, just hearing
the discussion today, it is all right to review. Are we making
this as safe for the taxpayer, an effective program as
possible? But, two, how do we reform the system that helps
people get out of poverty?
And one of the things we tried to work on last Congress was
how do we provide skill sets that align people to better-paying
jobs to help them get out of poverty, to give them a trade, to
teach them a skill. Because we have record employment numbers
today, a record-low unemployment. There is a high demand for
jobs, particularly in Nebraska. And we just want to help align
people to this work because we think that is the best way to
get them out of poverty.
With that, I would just like to ask maybe my first question
to Dr. Davis.
Tell us a little more about your thoughts. How are you
trying to reform the system to get people with these skill sets
so they become independent and out of poverty? I am hearing
some general philosophy, but can you give us a little more
tangible information?
Dr. John Davis. Absolutely.
We partner closely with most of the state agencies in
Mississippi, as Human Services. We recognized it was a bigger
job than just for Human Services to help individuals truly to
be successful. We partnered with each of the state agencies,
came together, determined a plan of action.
And then we recognized, too, as Human Services, this was
bigger than just on the state level. We had to empower the
communities to own this. We did that by expanding our Families
First Resource Centers, which now are in every county of the
State of Mississippi, helping individuals to find those
barriers that are in their lives to help try to eliminate those
barriers.
It is not just about their bank account; it is not just
about their income. It is about any other issue that is going
on in that home. We are finding generationally that there are
not good models sometimes of what it looks like to be
successful. And so we are trying to ensure that we look and
work closely on the community level.
Partnerships, collaboration, connecting the dots for
individuals: I am an advocate for SNAP benefits. I am an
advocate for the TANF Program. I believe that there is an
opportunity to help people help themselves.
I, too, recognize after all of these years, from being a
caseworker to now being Executive Director for the past 4
years, I understand the need, too, to empower people, to help
them to know that they can do more than what we can determine
eligibility for, that we can give them that empowerment through
professional and personal opportunities, workforce development,
tying those individuals to opportunities in the workforce
development area.
Mr. Bacon. Yes.
Lieutenant Governor Barnes, I also appreciate you testimony
earlier. Are there any reforms that you think we are missing to
help folks get the skill sets to become independent? Are there
things that we could be doing that we have not talked about,
from your vantage point?
Mr. Barnes. Well, I guess we could start by saying the
minimum wage hasn't gone up in 10 years. That would help lift
people directly out of poverty.
Poverty is on the rise in the State of Wisconsin. We are at
12.3 percent; 16, almost 17 percent of children. African
American rate of poverty is 44 percent in Wisconsin. Native
American--or, excuse me, African American children. Native
American children is 41 percent.
And, job training is great. I am all for job training
programs. But, unfortunately, those job training programs don't
always lead to living-wage job placements. I think that is
where we are missing the mark. And the more we can encourage
our employers to pay a decent living wage to people, it would
encourage work.
Because, right now, even if you look at the benefit cliff
that would be created with removing the categorical
eligibility, it would incentivize people to work less if they
had a chance to make an extra 50 an hour, because they would
be just over the limit and they would no longer be eligible for
the benefit and end up at a net loss.
Mr. Bacon. Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Van Drew.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for
having this today.
And thank you all for being here and answering all these
questions.
First of all, I really want to say that I do believe that
the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans don't want to
hurt poor people. Sometimes when we get into these discussions,
it gets so intense, and the next thing we know--and I know I am
digressing a little bit--we are starting to speak about other
issues and other differences.
But I do hope that there is a day that comes more and more
that we are working together and accomplishing goals together,
because there are many similarities in where we all want to go.
There may be some differences, but I really do believe that.
And for my part, I am going to try to do everything I can to
encourage that.
And I want to thank you for being here, because it is
funny, New Jersey, which is my home state, is a wealthy state,
and it is a state that people really assume doesn't have many
of the problems that we all hear about today. But I have
received estimates from the state Department of Human Services
that we have \1/4\ million New Jersey households that receive
SNAP under expanded categorical eligibility.
It is a big deal in New Jersey, and it is particularly a
big deal in the part of New Jersey where I come from, which is
the southern part of the state, which is more rural and
seashore, and many people only work part of the year and have
tremendous challenges during the year. Lowest per-capita income
of any county in the state in our area. I have a lot of
statistics that show there are a lot of issues.
And the other issue that I really have concern is health
and the healthfulness of people, and especially when it comes
to the obesity rate of children. We have the highest obesity
rate, again, in my part of the state.
The question I would ask, and I kind of know the answer,
but I just want to hear it and make sure I am right. How does
hunger impact overall outcomes for education, income, and
health?
And I would ask Ms. Davis that question.
Ms. Lisa Davis. Great. Thank you for your question. I have
three points to make.
First, on the educational front, children can't come to
school hungry to learn if they are just plain hungry. We hear
from teachers all across America about the difference that they
see in their classroom from an educational performance
standpoint, an attendance standpoint, and a behavioral
standpoint when their kids are getting enough to eat. And
studies show that, at the end of the month, when we know that
most families have run out of their SNAP benefits, kids do less
well in school and there are more disciplinary actions.
Ensuring three healthy meals a day, every day, for kids has a
tremendous impact on education.
With health and obesity, too, one of the many benefits of
SNAP and getting kids on SNAP is that studies show that over a
lifetime they have a significantly lower chance of having
metabolic disease, so obesity, high blood pressure, heart
disease. And there are a lot of studies that show the
correlation between obesity and food insecurity----
Mr. Van Drew. Yes. And that is what I wanted to ask about a
little bit more.
Do you believe we are doing a good enough job, in the way
the program works--and I know what the purpose of this hearing
is, but it still is part of the SNAP issue--with ensuring that
the food that they are getting, that they are eating, that they
are getting three healthy meals a day?
Ms. Lisa Davis. I think that one of the biggest challenges
is that SNAP benefits are simply too low. You have heard
several people reference $1.40 per meal per day. There are
other studies that show that, for many families, the benefits
run out by the second or third week of the month. We need to
take a serious look at SNAP benefit adequacy.
For school meals, they might have strict nutritional
requirements, and that is very important for kids too. But what
we see is it is that fundamental lack of consistent access to
enough nutritious food that ends up impacting their health.
Families who don't have enough resources may cope by buying
less expensive, higher-calorie food. We know that people's
bodies and metabolisms respond and are permanently changed by
cycles of feast and famine.
The most important thing is to make sure that all kids in
America have adequate access to enough nutritious food. And
that starts with looking at SNAP benefit adequacy.
Mr. Van Drew. Yes. And I think that is both, financially,
the dollars are there to make sure that they are able to get
the proper food, but also to make sure that the educational
aspect is there, that they get the proper food.
And real quick, I know I have to go real fast; but, when we
look at jobs--and that was part of the discussion here--we have
lots and lots of jobs out there that people aren't being
trained for in the technical fields, in the fields of other
areas----
The Chair. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Van Drew. I know. I would love to talk about this, but
I won't. But I wish that our county colleges and technical
schools would work together even more to make that happen.
Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Yoho, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't know where to start, I have so much stuff here.
Mr. Barnes, you said SNAP has proven to be the singular
most effective anti-hunger program in the country, helping more
than 40 million people.
My question is, why prior to the recession, when we had
approximately 17 million to 20 million people on SNAP, it
increased to over 44 million, and now we are at full
employment, higher wages across the board, yet we are still at
about 39 million people?
Mr. Barnes?
Mr. Barnes. Yes, no, actually, that 40 million figure
didn't come from me, but----
Mr. Yoho. Well, the point is, we are at full employment. We
were at 17 million to 20 million before the recession. It went
up to 40 million, 45 million. Now we are down to 39 million to
40 million people.
If we are at full employment and higher wages, why are
there so many people still on SNAP?
Mr. Barnes. I have to push back on the higher wages piece.
Mr. Yoho. Well, you need to come to Florida then.
Mr. Barnes. I am in Wisconsin.
Mr. Yoho. Go ahead.
Mr. Barnes. The wages haven't--like, the national trend is
that wages have not kept up, first of all, with inflation, and
second of all----
Mr. Yoho. Well, we can talk about that. I think that that
is something that needs to be pointed out. Because, in my
state, average wages are, in my district, usually around $11 to
$14 an hour, starting.
Mr. Barnes. Yes. May I ask where your district is?
Mr. Yoho. The best part of Florida, District Three.
Let me move on, because you said something else. ``It must
be noted that the categorical eligibility does not result in
substantial SNAP benefits going to non-needy families and does
not mean households automatically get SNAP. They must qualify
for benefits.''
Do you have a number that says what substantial is? Because
you said it's not substantial, the people that are not needy
getting these.
Mr. Barnes. Yes, I mean, we are talking about a few rare
occurrences. And, again----
Mr. Yoho. What percentage? What percentage of all----
Mr. Barnes. I can get that percentage back to you.
[The information referred to is located on p. 115.]
Mr. Yoho. I would like for you to get that.
Because, someone like Mr. Undersander, if he can show a
flaw in this system--and this is what irritates me about
Congress. It shouldn't be this side says we are trying to take
benefits away from poor people and this side saying poor people
are lazy. Nothing gets fixed. We should focus on what is best
for the person that this program was designed for.
And if somebody like Mr. Undersander can show a flaw in it,
I would think us, as Members of Congress, would come together
and say, ``Well, by God, if somebody is cheating the system and
it is that easy, we should bring an end to this.'' We would
come together as Congress, not as Republicans or Democrats but
as Americans, to fix the dang problem. And Mr. Undersander
should be--he is a whistleblower that pointed something out.
And we can talk about fraud in the food stamp program,
because we have had a person come up here to show there is a
minimum of $1 billion in food stamp fraud. USDA says there is
$4 billion to $7 billion in food stamp fraud. And if we are
really concerned about the integrity of this program, well,
again, by God, we ought to be able to come together and fix
that for the American people, because we are in charge of their
money.
I want to move on to something, because I am on a roll
here.
Mr. Barnes. Can I respond to that?
Mr. Yoho. Quickly.
Mr. Barnes. Because with all due respect, if the percentage
was so high, why are we using the same example over and over
again?
Mr. Yoho. Of what?
Mr. Barnes. The guy in Minnesota. If there are so many
people, why are we using the same person over and over again as
an example?
Mr. Yoho. Because that has been brought up to my attention,
but I can show you the fraud on the food stamps out of
Jacksonville. In fact, we had that person up here, and we
invited the Ranking Member to come see the demonstration and
the facts of people selling food stamps, EBT cards, 50 on the
dollar, of millions of dollars in Jacksonville.
Ms. Davis, I want to move on to, of the people that are on
food stamps, on SNAP, of the 39 million people, roughly, on
SNAP, your figure states that only 4.2 percent were the BBCE
category. Is that correct?
Ms. Lisa Davis. It is 4.2 percent have gross incomes
between 131 percent of poverty----
Mr. Yoho. But those are the ones that are on broad-based
categorical eligibility, is the way I understood that.
Ms. Lisa Davis. Well, those are the people that would have
eligibility conferred through broad-based categorical
eligibility.
Mr. Yoho. All right. But when I did the math, it equates to
about $2.7 billion. If we have people that can qualify that
shouldn't be on that, why don't we want to tighten that up?
Ms. Lisa Davis. One area that is often misunderstood is
that the first step is looking at gross eligibility. And broad-
based categorical eligibility raises that to between 131
percent and 200 percent of poverty.
Mr. Yoho. The reforms we put in the last bill----
Ms. Lisa Davis. We still have to look at net income after
deductions. And so, for families that have----
Mr. Yoho. Well, the last farm bill that Chairman Conaway
tried to put through raised the assets somebody could have.
Their car was $3,000, in the old days, and it went to $12,000.
They could have X amount of dollars in assets. And it got beat
down in this Committee, and it didn't pass.
And it is unconscionable that Members of Congress can't
come together to fix a program, again, for the American people
and the people that truly need it.
I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you.
Mrs. Hayes, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to all the witnesses that are here today.
And I agree with my colleague on the other side that when
we identify that someone is committing fraud or fundamentally
shifting our institutions that we should do something about it,
and that is not a partisan issue.
I want to walk you guys through an equation, because we are
talking about SNAP benefits, and I have been on the other side
of those benefits. Being in this room and in this Committee
hearing is somewhat personal for me.
First of all, the number of people receiving benefits goes
up even though our employment rates are down because children
don't work.
If you have a family of four--I am going to talk about in
my home State of Connecticut. The eligibility for a family of
four is $3,870 a month. That is how much has to be earned. My
guess is, in that family, at least two, possibly three, of
those people are children, that breaks down to $967 a week.
In my state, where the minimum wage is $10.10, if it is two
adults, they are working--it is 95 hours a week, so one person
is working 40 hours, another person is working 55 hours, but 95
hours a week at minimum wage in order to meet the threshold. I
know this because I worked three jobs and still qualified for
SNAP benefits because I fell under the threshold.
Of that number, you would receive $642 a month in benefits,
which breaks down to about $160 a week for a family of four.
That is $40 per person per week. A gallon of milk is $3.99 in
my state, which means ten percent of your per-person weekly
budget on SNAP would go to just buying a gallon of milk.
Nobody is taking advantage of that. When you really look at
it, that is what it means.
I am going to back up a little, because I have been accused
of being a single-issue person who only cares about children
and education, and you are probably not wrong. But on the flip
side of that, my grandmother, when we took care of her at home
when she was suffering with Alzheimer's, received benefits. One
person, elderly, $68 a month.
When we are having a conversation about fraud and abuse and
misuse, and a family of four, which could potentially have two,
possibly three, children, boiled down to $40 per person per
week, and that is where we are looking to cut? That is where
something is fundamentally wrong and unconscionable.
Ms. Davis, thank you so much for the work that you are
doing with No Kid Hungry, because while we are here debating
loopholes and eligibility and requirements, kids are going
hungry. And they don't have time for us to sit around and play
these partisan games. These are programs that people depend on,
and not as a handout, but sometimes people just need them as a
step up to get themselves started. I worked three jobs, and
still qualified for benefits?
And most of the children have no control over, like Mr.
Barnes said, their family finances. I know I didn't.
But I digress, because I get so worked up when I am on
these committees and I hear people who are having conversations
about kids who can't defend themselves, who just need for us to
speak up for them until they can speak for themselves, who just
need us to stand in intercession until they can stand.
And I am probably going to use my whole 5 minutes
editorializing, but I need for you to understand that we are
having a hearing on something that is impacting people's lives
right now. This is serious.
Mr. Barnes, you talked about you not receiving benefits as
a child but then as an adult. And there are a lot of people who
are in that situation as well. And if you could just talk to us
a little bit about what that is. Because it is not these
generational shifts that people are talking about or this
cyclical poverty. Sometimes people just fall on hard times.
Mr. Barnes. Well, absolutely. And the last thing I wanted
to do was to stay receiving those benefits. I was working a
full-time job. And I finished college in 2008, quite possibly
the worst time to ever finish college if you wanted a job. And
I ended up getting one, and before I was laid off, my hours
were cut by maybe about 40 percent, which then put me in the
category where I was ineligible for SNAP benefits as well as
everything else, energy assistance, whatever the case was.
And, ultimately, after I got laid off, I was on
unemployment, and that was not a place that I wanted to be. The
last thing I wanted to do was be unemployed as an adult, a
single adult. And so finding a job was tough in 2010. It was
very difficult.
Mrs. Hayes. Even with an education and a work history?
Mr. Barnes. With an education and with work history. It is
not easy.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I knew that, but I just wanted to
hear you say it.
Mr. Barnes. Yes.
Mrs. Hayes. Please say hello to my friend Tony Evers.
Mr. Barnes. I will.
The Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Hagedorn, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hagedorn. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
hearing that you are holding.
Thanks to the witnesses.
One of the reasons I wanted to serve on the Agriculture
Committee was twofold: to make sure that we can sustain our
incredible system of agriculture that produces the finest-
quality, affordable products in all the world for the American
people and for a lot of people around the world. And that food
supply is abundantly important. People go into the grocery
store, they have an opportunity to select from this array of
choices--it is an incredible thing. And I like to talk about
and champion that every chance we get. It doesn't happen in
every country around the world.
But then there is a second part of the ag bill that is
important and why I wanted to serve: the nutrition programs.
The United States of America and our taxpayers, our citizens
are the most generous people in all the world. We provide a
safety net for folks to make sure that people, when they are
down on their luck, or for whatever reason they need help, and
we get them that help.
But what we need to do is make sure we are good stewards of
that money and that those resources are directed to the people
that actually need the help. And if there are folks out there
receiving benefits that shouldn't, those resources should be
directed either back to the General Fund of the Treasury or to
the people that need it even more.
And so I think that is what this hearing is about. We are
talking about these issues. And we even had the Chairman of the
Committee, Mr. Peterson, I guess in the previous Congress, and
he brought that up. He is from my home state. I believe the
gentleman that is here who kind of showed that there is maybe a
problem about the system here and there, Mr. Undersander, he is
from the State of Minnesota. And Mr. Peterson said at one
point, he said, ``We in Congress have created a system where
states set the rules in some cases and then we are left paying
the bills.''
And he is right. Because the government, even though the
Federal Government provides moneys to the states, the states
get to administer the programs. And what has happened over the
years, is the programs have gotten a little bit out of whack.
They have been liberalized in some areas that maybe is not
helping everybody.
But are there areas where we should tighten it up? Of
course. Should we have a biometric E-Verify to make sure that
illegal aliens are not collecting Federal welfare dollars,
which is against the law? Absolutely. Why do we want to send
our taxpayer dollars there? Should we be doing everything we
can to make sure people are not collecting in multiple states,
which happens from time to time? You know, there are people out
there that try to exploit our systems. We want these resources
to be directed to the people that need it.
And then we have the case where this asset test,
technically, you can walk through, and Mr. Undersander said,
``Hey, I can collect. I don't think I should, but do something
about it.'' All right, we should do something about it. And
maybe as Mr. Barnes and others said, it doesn't affect every
case, doesn't affect that many. But it shouldn't happen. We
should all agree it shouldn't happen.
But when you look at what is going on, I used to work for a
Congressman that served on this Committee in the 1980s, Arlan
Stangeland. He led the Republican work-for-welfare bill and
work requirement bill back then. And that bill was
fundamentally passed by President Clinton, who signed it, Newt
Gingrich and the Republicans in Congress, some fair-minded
Democrats who joined us on that, to increase the work standards
and technical training and other requirements for people that
collect welfare, including food stamps.
That bill was very successful. It drove down the rates,
saved costs. People got back into private-sector and other
work. And I think it was a good thing.
But, for many purposes, that legislation was undermined by
the 2009 stimulus Act and many of the Obama Administration
rules that allow waivers for states to basically ignore the
work requirements. And so the USDA is working on that to try to
tighten that up. I support them on that fundamentally and
wholeheartedly.
Because, in many instances, a lot of these asset tests and
others maybe go by the wayside when you say to people, ``If you
are collecting benefits and you are able-bodied, we need you to
either get in there and get some technical training so you can
get into the workforce, have an upwardly mobile job, or work
for your welfare the same way the taxpayers do and give
incentive to try to get off the programs.''
But I will tell you this. I think that the most
compassionate thing that Members of Congress can do is to say
we need to take people from government dependence, welfare, and
move them to technical training, move them to work, move them
to self-sufficiency. That is the most compassionate thing we
can ever do.
And, the mandates for able-bodied citizens, it is just
common sense, I think. And every person in our society, every
potential worker has worth and value, and we should never
stymie their success and their upward mobility because of
government programs, bad government, even in the name of
compassion.
With that, I yield back. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
Mr. Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is great
to be here. Sorry I was a little late today. As you know, the
great convenience of serving on multiple committees. Thank you
for your patience.
And thank you to the witnesses. I will let the witnesses
know that, although there are two Davises on the panel, I don't
believe we are related. If we are, if it is showing up in your
23andMe, let me know.
This is a great opportunity to discuss where the future of
our SNAP program and categorical eligibility leads us to. And
we have to look at data, we have to use technology. I am sure
in much of the hearing that I was unable to attend we talked
about technology.
I don't want to rehash a lot of the issues that were
brought up, but we are at a different time than when Mr. Barnes
graduated from college and a different time than when I
graduated from college, where the economy wasn't ticking as
well as it is now, unemployment was a lot higher than it is
now. And, right now, we have to have systems set up in place
that encourage families who may be eligible to get training for
the jobs that we know are available.
We talk about the SNAP Education and Training Program. I
like to think that I am a pretty bipartisan person. The Lugar
Center says I am. This Committee has been one that has been an
epitome of bipartisanship.
But instead of working together and trying to figure out a
way to help families who may be stuck in the cycle of poverty
and eligible for food stamps, eligible for SNAP benefits that
nobody on this dais wants to take away from those who need that
benefit, we ran into issues of investing more money into SNAP
Education and Training to help families that may have more
children, like was mentioned earlier, that are adding to our
SNAP rolls.
And we want those kids to get food, we want them to get
fed, and we want them to get nutrition, not just at school but
at home and during the summers. But, at some point, we also
want to make sure that their parents, their families, have an
opportunity to take advantage of where we are as a country
economically right now.
I have jobs in my district, in my hometown of 11,000
people, that will pay $70,000 a year to drive a truck to
deliver fast food to restaurants and be home virtually every
evening, and they can't fill the jobs.
Why aren't we looking at our SNAP program, too, to find out
who may be on the border of qualification when it comes to
categorical eligibility? Why aren't we looking to them to work
together and increase SNAP Education and Training funding to
get that person, that family, paired up with our local
community college to get that certification to get that job
that is available? Why can't we do that?
Data doesn't lie. The data shows we have many families that
could take advantage of this economy that we see right now,
that could go from one day using what we call our Link card in
Illinois, wondering what you can and cannot buy at the grocery
store for your family and the kids that you want to feed, you
want to get them good, nutritional food, and you wonder what
you can buy and what you can't buy. Imagine if we gave them
those same SNAP benefits and we also paid for their education
and training and then we paired them up with a job. And they
went from wondering what they could buy--and, 8 weeks later,
after, let's say, one of their parents got a CDL and took that
job at McLane Trucking in Taylorville, Illinois, let's say they
went to making $70,000 a year. Why aren't we working there?
Why do we have debates over, well, we shouldn't have a
verification process, we should have a verification process? We
know there are people that are going to take advantage of any
program. We ought to work together to root that out. We ought
not protect that type of situation.
I know I have the red light, but I know, Madam Chair, Ms.
Fudge, is going to let you answer a question, Dr. Davis. But I
am going to take you right down to the wire. She knows I am
usually good at this.
Dr. John Davis. Pressure.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. I have 37 seconds.
Listen, we know the best thing we can do, besides having us
come up with the money to invest and pair families who are
stuck in the cycle of poverty up with a job, with training to
get that job, we also know that technology shows us who they
are. Explain to me how technology in your state is working to
do what I said we need to do.
Dr. John Davis. Thank you, sir.
We have partnered with our local university, Mississippi
State University, working with technology to actually identify
those individuals. We have actually helped 200,000 individuals
come off of the program in the past 18 months, and they are in
a job placement. We can track them now through that technology,
through the state longitudinal data system, which I preside
over.
We also know that, by doing that, by empowering those
individuals through public-private partnerships with companies
like KLLM, a trucking company who have hired those individuals,
that we can find sustainable wages for that individual and that
family.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And you didn't take any SNAP
benefits away from those families.
Dr. John Davis. None. None.
The Chair. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Sorry to interrupt you. I knew I
would end it.
Dr. John Davis. It was good.
The Chair. Listen, he better be glad I like him, because I
gave him more time than he should have had.
Dr. John Davis. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. I see you can speed-talk. You sound like one of
those people on the commercials that talk real fast.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I was just listening to your answer, Dr. Davis, even though
I cut you off. It is interesting how well your program is
working. It is a good thing that you were able to do it within
your own state the way that you wanted to do it, isn't it?
Dr. John Davis. Yes, ma'am.
The Chair. The flexibility is exactly what you need, right?
Dr. John Davis. Well, from the standpoint of we have had
the advantage of working with closely with our Federal
partners----
The Chair. Turn your microphone on.
Dr. John Davis. I am sorry.
From the standpoint of we have worked closely with our
Federal partners in developing that program through a continuum
of process through our regional office and our national office.
Mississippi and Alabama have partnered with our regional
offices to do that, along with the Department of Labor,
Department of Health and Human Services, as well as USDA, to
make that happen.
The Chair. Great. Thank you.
I was listening to the Ranking Member, and he talked about
we should have some say-so because it is Federal money. Do you
remember that?
Dr. John Davis. Yes, ma'am.
The Chair. Do you also know that you get money for
education from the Federal Government and they want to tell
states to do their own education?
Do you realize that you get money for Medicaid from the
Federal Government?
Dr. John Davis. Yes, ma'am.
The Chair. They want states to do that too.
Do you realize that you get money for roads, for bridges?
They want to do that too.
I don't understand why they just pick this one thing and
say, ``Nope, you shouldn't have any flexibility.'' You get
money from the Federal Government for a lot of things that we
need to hold you responsible for.
Dr. Waxman, a wide range of states and territories,
including those led by Democratic and Republican Governors and
officials, are using broad-based cat-el to connect SNAP to
households that may have a slightly higher income but still the
need of assistance.
Why is it important to support this population that is
working its way out of poverty?
Dr. Waxman. Thank you for that question.
I notice that some of the Members have mentioned the
importance of emphasizing and supporting work. And, in fact,
raising that gross income eligibility level does exactly that.
Most of the people who are brought into the program then have
higher income; more of them have earnings. And they are at risk
of being less well off if they get a small raise, often, even
though they are doing exactly what we would ask them to try to
be on the path to self-sufficiency. If the benefits are lost
and they don't have that ability to raise their income without
losing the benefits, that is really a challenge.
The other thing we want to know is that those households
are disproportionately likely to have children. Those are also
often working families with children, again, on the path that I
think we would all emphasize.
So it gives flexibility. And we need to realize that
working families encounter a lot of expenses. Childcare is
huge. And high housing costs is one of deductions that we are
allowed to use under that BBCE.
The Chair. Thank you.
It is interesting that my colleagues talk about training
and about work and able-bodied and all of that. Most of the
people we are talking about work. Am I correct?
Dr. Waxman. That is correct.
The Chair. I am not sure where the disconnect is. Most of
the people we are talking about do work. They just don't make
enough money to get by. They need a little help at the end of
the month. It is not as if they are not trying. You know, we
would make people believe that people don't want to work.
Mr. Davis, my friend, even though we disagree on almost
everything, Mr. Davis talked about--well, not everything, but
most--Mr. Davis talked about people with CDLs. Do you know why
that is a difficult problem in certain communities? Because you
can't have had a ticket. You can't have had a DUI. You can't
have had other problems.
People who are poor have more difficulty, because people
who have means, when they make mistakes, they get in a
diversion program. They have somebody expunge their record.
They do a lot of things that people who are just making it
cannot do. That is why there is a difference.
We have to understand that every single community, every
single person is different. People do the best they can. Is
there probably some person in the world that doesn't want to
work? Maybe. But I don't know them. And I represent one of
poorest districts in the United States. They come to my office
every day wanting to find a job. We send them to community
colleges for training programs, and then people don't want to
hire them.
I know that there are impediments. This is not all rosy.
People have challenges. Yes, we need to train more people to
work. I wish every single person in this country worked. But we
don't.
And the reality is most of the people who are on SNAP
either work or cannot work. They are either disabled, they are
the elderly, they are children. They cannot or they do. And so
I just want to make sure that everybody understands that.
And, with that, I am going to yield to the Ranking Member
for his closing remarks, 5 minutes, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much.
I want to say how much I appreciated the tone of Mr. Van
Drew. I mean, he clearly is attempting to find common ground.
And we actually heard that not just from him but from a number
of people today, and that gives us a path forward, which is
good news.
Ms. Schrier, I am just such a fan of hers, and she is so
smart. And so the point she brought up about this one percent
fraud, that is a different number than I had seen before. If we
could ask for that data and have that in the record.
And, accordingly, I had been asked to provide some
information on my 96 percent to 99 percent----
The Chair. Ninety-nine.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, 99, but both numbers are in here as well.
I will provide that to staff.
[The information referred to is located on p. 109.]
Mr. Johnson. Somebody used the word, whistleblower, to
describe Mr. Undersander, and that is the right approach. His
actions were not motivated in any way to enrich himself. That
money that he received--I don't know if this has come to the
fore, but I want to make it clear--it was donated to charities
that help poor people. He is a whistleblower who wanted to
effect change within the system. We should celebrate
whistleblowers in this society to a greater extent than we do.
I appreciated Ranking Member Conaway's comments about the
need to have a fulsome conversation. There are some changes
that need to happen in this system if we are concerned about
the benefits cliff, and I am. Some of the panelists did a good
job of explaining it. Then let's change that. Let's have an
honest reform of that system rather than through distortions of
the existing system. If we think the asset test is artificially
low, if it is antiquated--and I do--then let's change that
rather than kind of ignore it through distortions of our
existing system.
I want to end with a comment that I made, Madam Chair,
during my opening remarks, which is something that I believe
with my whole heart and that I think every Member on this dais
throughout the day believes in their whole heart: we need this
program, and we need this program to be effective.
And so many of the things we heard from the panelists today
reinforce the fact that that program is worthy and is needed
but maybe obscured some of the improvements that can happen
through a reform of the cat-el system.
Thank you.
The Chair. I thank you, Mr. Johnson. And I really very much
appreciate the comment that we do need it. And so when USDA
comes forward with a rule to try to get rid of it, let's just
stand together.
Why was that funny?
Let me just say a couple of things in closing.
First off, I thank you all for your testimony. I thank you
for your time.
I thank all of my colleagues for their time. Mr. Davis is
right. I am on three committees. He is probably on three. We
are constantly moving. And for the entire Committee to have
shown up today shows the importance of this topic. I thank you
all for being here.
I take hunger very seriously, because I know what hunger
does to children. I represent some of the wealthiest people in
the world, and I absolutely represent a lot of the poorest. And
I know, from the people I talk to every day, what a parent
feels when their kid is hungry, what a hungry kid feels when
they go to school. I take it very, very seriously. I take
preparing young children for a successful future seriously.
I believe that you are right, Mr. Barnes; we should not
only allow them to have a meal in school and go home hungry, or
go to an after-school program where they can't get milk or
juice, or go all summer when school is out and not have a
decent meal for almost 3 months. I agree with you. We have to
find a way to make sure that hungry people can eat all of the
time and not just when they fill out the proper form for the
proper place.
It is very, very important to me that the system work. Now,
I don't have a problem with whistleblowers. I really don't. But
when you purposely set out to find a way to make a system that
has worked for so long look bad just for sport, there is a
problem with me. It is great that he gave the money to charity,
but it wasn't his money to give. I hope he didn't take it off
on his tax return.
I just think that we have to understand who we are. And
what we are is people who are trying to do the best for the
people who sent us here. I will do whatever it takes to make
sure that hungry people are fed. We are in the richest nation
in the world. There should not be hungry children, there should
not be hungry seniors, there should not be hungry disabled
people in this country.
And so, if we blow it once or twice, let's fix it. Let's
not try to destroy it because somebody found a loophole or
someone found a problem. Let's fix the problem. I am glad he
showed it. I don't like the way he did it, but let's fix the
problem. Let's not just throw out the baby with the bath water
because some wise guy decided that there was a problem.
I am going to stop before I go any further.
Let me just say 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 supplementary written
responses from the witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight,
and Department Operations is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Article by Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in Congress
from South Dakota
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
https://www.sctimes.com/story/opinion/2016/09/28/state-needs-asset-
test-food-stamps/91183584/
State needs asset test for food stamps
Opinion
St. Cloud Times
Rob Undersander, St. Cloud
Published 7:05 a.m. CT Sept. 28, 2016
Reinstate asset testing, including retirement accounts, with excess
value determination for one's house and car.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
(Photo: St. Cloud Times)
Story Highlights
If I say I'm a millionaire receiving food stamps, I have
attention for change.
Prior to 2008, asset testing was done in most states.
I volunteer at a local agency assisting seniors with health
insurance and other needs. During formal training for this work, I
learned asset testing was not required for food stamps.
My wife and I are both retired. We worked hard, raised our family,
saved money for retirement and now live very comfortably. In fact, our
net worth exceeds $1 million. We also applied for and are now receiving
food stamps--$278 per month! This is wrong--so wrong.
Food stamps, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as
it's now called, should be made available to only those in need, not
people like my wife and myself. Why are we eligible? Because
eligibility in Minnesota is based on income only, not assets.
The program was started in 1965 under the Lyndon Johnson
Administration. In 1969 there were 2.9 million participants. Today,
there are 44.4 million Americans, almost one in seven, receiving
benefits, at a cost to the taxpayer of $74 billion annually! The
average benefit in Minnesota is $118 per person per month. Since
October of 2012, the number of participants has dropped by only 6.5
percent. Unemployment has dropped a whopping 37 percent in the same
period. If more people are working, fewer should need food stamps.
In the spirit of making positive suggestions instead of negative
criticism, here are four recommendations for SNAP improvement:
Reinstate asset testing, including retirement accounts, with
excess value determination for one's house and car. Our high
mortgage payment qualifies us for a higher benefit because
benefit levels are based on net income.
Expand the Able[-]Bodied Adult Without Dependants age from
18-49 to 18-62. The adults can only receive 3 months of
benefits in a 36 month period. Seniors, like myself, are not
required to work to be eligible. We should!
Count Social Security Benefits at age 62 as part of the
applicant's income whether they are received. I am 63, but
elect to wait to age 66 for SSB. I would not receive any food
stamps if I were receiving SSB.
Eliminate non-nutritious and luxury food items such as soft
drinks, energy drinks, candy, snacks, desserts and so on. I
have purchased lobster and filet mignon on my EBT card!
So why do we take the money if we know it's wrong? Three reasons:
To make a point and raise public awareness. If I stated in
casual conversation with someone that I was doing research on
SNAP and discussed asset testing, their eyes would probably
start to glaze over. If I say I'm a millionaire receiving food
stamps, I have their attention.
To redistribute the money to those who really need it. We
intend to give every dollar we receive to charities or
individuals in need. Obviously, we are far more qualified than
state and Federal legislators in this regard because they are
giving benefits to us!
To recover unnecessary taxes levied by politicians. For
example, the $2 billion surplus in Minnesota state coffers.
Prior to 2008, asset testing was done in most states to determine
eligibility as it still is for many public assistance programs. The
2008 Food and Nutrition Act (part of the 2008 Farm Bill), in addition
to changing the name from Food Stamps to SNAP, changed that by
eliminating education and retirement accounts from asset testing--
apparently in an effort to encourage people to save money.
Seriously? Did they really think people who could not afford food
would continue contributing to their [401(k)] accounts, albeit at the
expense of the taxpayer?
Thirty-five states took that as a sign to eliminate asset testing
altogether. Pennsylvania, under Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, was the
first in 2008. The following year Republican Gov. Tom Corbett reversed
that decision after hearing about two people in Michigan who had won
more than $1 million and were still receiving SNAP benefits.
We want to be that couple in Minnesota!
This is the opinion of Rob Undersander, who was born and
raised in the St. Cloud area. He left for 38 years, serving as
a U.S. Navy officer, and worked in the oilfield, aerospace and
homeland security industries around the country, including
Texas for many years, where he participated in local
government. He returned to retire on his family's land west of
St. Cloud.
______
Submitted Report by Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in Congress
from South Dakota
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Setting the Record Straight on Food Stamp Loopholes & School Lunches
June 20, 2018
Nic Horton, Research Director; Jonathan Ingram, Vice President of
Research.
What are free and reduced-price lunches and who qualifies?
The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) provides free and reduced-
price lunches for school-age children across America. There are two
primary eligibility pathways for children to qualify for the program:
income eligibility and categorical eligibility.1-2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Randy Alison Aussenberg, ``School meals programs and other USDA
child nutrition programs: A primer,'' Congressional Research Service
(2016), http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/
R43783.pdf.
\2\ Children can also receive free meals through the ``community
eligibility provision,'' an option that allows schools to provide free
meals to all students so long as at least 40 percent of their students
are categorically eligible for free meals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kids who enroll in the program through the income pathway can
receive free or reduced-price lunches if their household incomes are
below 185 percent of the Federal poverty level--nearly $46,500 per year
for a family of four.\3\ Those with household incomes below 130 percent
of the Federal poverty level qualify for free lunches, while kids from
homes with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty
level qualify for reduced-price lunches.\4\ Under Federal law, schools
are prohibited from charging more than 40 for a reduced-price
lunch.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Food and Nutrition Service, ``Child nutrition programs: Income
eligibility guidelines,'' U.S. Department of Agriculture (2018),
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-05-08/pdf/2018-09679.pdf.
\4\ Randy Alison Aussenberg, ``School meals programs and other USDA
child nutrition programs: A primer,'' Congressional Research Service
(2016), http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/
R43783.pdf.
\5\ Ibid.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Reduced-Priced Lunches Are Capped at 40
Kids who enroll in the program via categorical eligibility qualify
if their household is enrolled in Federal welfare programs, such as
food stamps.\6\ They receive free meals regardless of whether their
household income level actually meets the program's guidelines.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ibid.
\7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is broad-based categorical eligibility?
Broad-based categorial eligibility (BBCE) is a loophole that allows
states to expand eligibility for food stamps by raising the income
limit, raising asset limits, or even waiving the asset limit
entirely.\8\ Under Federal law, food stamp enrollees must have income
below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level, roughly $32,630 for a
family of four.9-10 However, Clinton-era regulations
provided states with a workaround.\11\ By using TANF cash welfare
dollars to print informational brochures or pamphlets, everyone
authorized to receive those brochures or pamphlets are deemed
``categorically eligible'' for the food stamps program, making them
exempt from the gross income limit and the asset limit in food
stamps.\12\ As a result, states can use this loophole to expand food
stamps eligibility to individuals earning up to 200 percent of the
poverty line and even expand eligibility to individuals with millions
of dollars in assets.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Jonathan Ingram, ``Memo to FNS regarding executive order
reducing poverty in America by promoting opportunity and economic
mobility,'' Foundation for Government Accountability (2018), https://
thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Memo-to-FNS-4-10-18.pdf.
\9\ 7 CFR 273.9 (2018), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2018-
title7-vol4/pdf/CFR-2018-title7-vol4-sec273-9.pdf.
\10\ Authors' calculations based upon 2018 Federal poverty
guidelines. See, e.g., Office of the Secretary, ``Annual update of the
HHS poverty guidelines,'' U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(2018), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-01-18/pdf/2018-00814.pdf.
\11\ Jonathan Ingram, ``Memo to FNS regarding executive order
reducing poverty in America by promoting opportunity and economic
mobility,'' Foundation for Government Accountability (2018), https://
thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Memo-to-FNS-4-10-18.pdf.
\12\ Ibid.
\13\ Elizabeth Laird and Carole Trippe, ``Programs conferring
categorical eligibility for SNAP: State policies and the number and
characteristics of households affected,'' Mathematica Policy Research
(2014), https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/download-media?MediaItemId=(913
5CB5F-F3E1-43E6-ADE2-C232B26593EB).
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
$50,200 for a Family of Four
Not only are these states expanding the program beyond the
Congressional intent and scope of Federal statute--they are
threatening resources for the truly needy.
Ending the BBCE loophole will preserve resources for the truly needy
Eliminating the BBCE loophole is one of the most important things
policymakers can do to protect limited resources for the truly needy
and protect the food stamp program's integrity. Unfortunately, too many
states are still on the wrong path.
Today, 28 states and the District of Columbia have used this
loophole to raise the income limit beyond the thresholds established in
Federal law.\14\ Even more states have used the loophole to raise the
asset limit or eliminate the asset test altogether.\15\ Not only are
these states expanding the program beyond Congressional intent and the
scope of Federal statute--they are threatening resources for the truly
needy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Food and Nutrition Service, ``Broad-based categorical
eligibility,'' U.S. Department of Agriculture (2018), https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/BBCE.pdf.
\15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture
found that most income-eligible households with financial resources
that exceed the Federal resource limit have more than $20,000 in
countable assets.\16\ One in five had more than $100,000 in assets,
including tens of thousands of households with more than $1 million in
assets.\17\ Every dollar spent on individuals with significant
financial resources or whose income is above the Federal eligibility
threshold is a dollar that cannot be preserved for those who actually
meet eligibility requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Karen Cunnyngham and James Ohls, ``Simulated effects of
changes to state and Federal asset eligibility policies for the Food
Stamp Program,'' U.S. Department of Agriculture (2008), https://
naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/26691/PDF.
\17\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worse yet, anyone receiving food stamps as a result of the BBCE
loophole is also deemed categorically eligible for free lunch, free
breakfast, and other nutrition programs, meaning this abuse is not
confined to just food stamps, but is spread across several other
nutrition programs as well.
Eliminating BBCE would have little impact on the number of kids who
qualify for the school lunch program
Eliminating BBCE should be a top priority for policymakers and
would go a long way towards restoring program integrity. Doing so would
have virtually no impact on the number of kids who qualify for the
school lunch program, given the large overlap between school lunch and
food stamp eligibility.
1. Nationally, more than 99.9 percent of school-aged kids on food
stamps would still qualify for the school lunch program
Overall, more than 14 million of the 14.1 million school-aged kids
on food stamps--more than 99.9 percent--would continue to qualify for
the school lunch program.\18\ These children would either continue to
receive free lunches because their families' household income is below
130 percent of the Federal poverty level, or they would receive
reduced-price lunches because their families' income is between 130 and
185 percent of the Federal poverty line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Authors' calculations based upon data provided by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture on food stamp enrollment among children
between the ages of 5 and 17, disaggregated by household income-to-
poverty ratios, in Fiscal Year 2015. See, e.g., Food and Nutrition
Service, ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program quality control
database,'' U.S. Department of Agriculture (2016), https://
host76.mathematica-mpr.com/fns/PUBLIC_USE/2015/qcfy2015_st.zip.
More Than 99.9% of School-Aged Kids on Food Stamps Would
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continue To Qualify for the School Lunch Program
2. Roughly 96.6 percent of school-aged kids on food stamps would
still qualify for free lunches
Nearly 13.6 million school-aged kids on food stamps--roughly 96.6
percent--would not be affected at all by eliminating the BBCE
loophole.\19\ These children live in families with household incomes
below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level. Even if the BBCE
loophole were eliminated, these children would continue to qualify for
free lunches based on their household incomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Ibid.
3. In 36 states, no child would lose access to the school lunch
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program
Although most states use the BBCE loophole in some way, the gross
income limit for food stamps is at or below 185 percent of the Federal
policy level in 36 states--the same eligibility threshold as the school
lunch program.\20\ If the BBCE loophole were eliminated, some of these
children might be moved from ``free'' lunches to reduced-price lunches,
but they would continue to qualify for and receive assistance from the
school lunch program. Even in states with higher food stamp income
limits that exceed the school lunch program threshold, the footprint
would be virtually invisible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Food and Nutrition Service, ``Broad-based categorical
eligibility,'' U.S. Department of Agriculture (2018), https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/BBCE.pdf.
4. Of the kids affected by eliminating BBCE, 98.2 percent would
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
still qualify for the school lunch program
Today, 14 states and the District of Columbia have set the gross
income limit for food stamps at 200 percent of the Federal poverty
line, higher than the income threshold for school lunch program
eligibility.\21\ However, while income eligibility extends above 185
percent, virtually all of the kids on food stamps in these states come
from households with income below that level.\22\ As a result, the vast
majority of these kids would still qualify for reduced-price lunches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Ibid.
\22\ Authors' calculations based upon data provided by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture on food stamp enrollment among children
between the ages of 5 and 17, disaggregated by household income-to-
poverty ratios, in Fiscal Year 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 484,000 school-aged kids in those states with household
incomes above 130 percent of the poverty line, more than 475,000--
nearly 98.2 percent--come from households with income below the
eligibility threshold for the school lunch program.\23\ While these
kids would no longer qualify for ``free'' lunches if the BBCE loophole
were eliminated, they would continue to qualify for reduced-price
lunches, where costs are capped at 40 per meal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Ibid.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
98.2% of Affected Kids Would Still Qualify for the School
Lunch Program
Eliminating BBCE would bring the school lunch and food stamp
programs back into alignment with their statutory foundations.
5. Kids who would no longer qualify never truly qualified in the
first place
Altogether, fewer than 9,000 school-aged children on food stamps
are from families with household income above the threshold for the
school lunch program but below the threshold for food stamps.\24\ But
these children would no longer qualify for one important reason: they
never qualified in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By definition, these children are not from families in poverty.
Indeed, those affected by the change have incomes that are either 85
percent higher or 100 percent higher than the poverty line--roughly
$46,500 to $50,000 per year for a family of four.\25\ For context, that
is close to the median household income for the entire country and is
actually higher than the median household income in some states.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Authors' calculations based upon 2018 Federal poverty
guidelines.
\26\ Gloria G. Guzman, ``Household income: 2016,'' U.S. Department
of Commerce (2017), https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/
publications/2017/acs/acsbr16-02.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the BBCE loophole effectively expanded the school lunch
program beyond the 185 percent set forth in Federal law, strictly
speaking, these households never truly met the income limits needed to
qualify for the program. Eliminating the BBCE loophole would correct
this issue and bring both the school lunch and food stamp programs back
into alignment with their statutory foundations, preserving resources
for the truly needy.
More than 99.9 percent of school-aged kids on food stamps
would continue to qualify for the school lunch program after
the BBCE loophole is eliminated.
Bottom line: Scrapping the BBCE loophole should be a top priority
for policymakers
Eliminating the BBCE loophole and protecting resources for the most
vulnerable should be a top priority for policymakers at both the state
and Federal levels. While far too many states are still utilizing this
loophole, momentum is thankfully starting to shift.
Arkansas, Kansas, and Mississippi have all recently enacted
legislation to prohibit the use of this loophole by state bureaucrats.
Others--including Michigan and Maine--have begun to reduce the impact
of the loophole and restore asset limits.
Perhaps the most encouraging sign in years comes from Washington[,]
D.C. The Trump Administration proposed eliminating the loophole
altogether in its Fiscal Year 2019 budget.\27\ The Administration has
also announced that it is working on changes to the regulations that
created the loophole.\28\ Likewise, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act
of 2018 would eliminate the use of the BBCE loophole entirely.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Food and Nutrition Service, ``2019 USDA budget explanatory
notes for Committee on Appropriations,'' U.S. Department of Agriculture
(2018), https://www.obpa.usda.gov/32fns2019notes.pdf.
\28\ Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ``Revision of
categorical eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program,'' Executive Office of the President (2018), https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201804&RIN=0584-AE62.
\29\ Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, H.R. 2, 115th Congress
(2018), https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr2/BILLS115hr2rh.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While pro-dependency interest groups are anxious to spin the
elimination of this loophole as a cataclysmic assault on the poor that
would take food out of the mouths of kids, the data show nothing could
be further from the truth. More than 99.9 percent of school-aged kids
on food stamps would continue to qualify for the school lunch program
after the BBCE loophole is eliminated. Indeed, eliminating this
loophole is a critical step towards restoring the food stamp and school
lunch programs to focus on the most deserving.
Ultimately, ending the BBCE loophole should be recognized for what
it fundamentally is--the realignment of food stamp eligibility with
Federal law, not a reduction in eligibility. For these reasons,
policymakers should make eliminating this loophole a top priority.
Appendix. 99.9 percent of school-age kids on food stamps would still
qualify for the school lunch program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kids Who Still
Food Stamp Kids Who Still Qualify for Free
State Income Limit Qualify for Free Or Reduced-
(Percent of FPL) Lunches Priced Lunches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 130% 100% 100%
Alaska 130% 100% 100%
Arizona 185% 94.2% 100%
Arkansas 130% 100% 100%
California 200% 97.7% 100%
Colorado 130% 100% 100%
Connecticut 185% 90.9% 100%
Delaware 200% 93.7% 99.9%
District of 200% 97% 100%
Columbia
Florida 200% 92.8% 100%
Georgia 130% 100% 100%
Hawaii 200% 92.2% 100%
Idaho 130% 100% 100%
Illinois 165% 99.4% 100%
Indiana 130% 100% 100%
Iowa 160% 94.8% 100%
Kansas 130% 100% 100%
Kentucky 130% 100% 100%
Louisiana 130% 100% 100%
Maine 185% 89.8% 100%
Maryland 200% 90.4% 99.8%
Massachusetts 200% 88.4% 99.2%
Michigan 200% 95.5% 100%
Minnesota 165% 92.8% 100%
Mississippi 130% 100% 100%
Missouri 130% 100% 100%
Montana 200% 99.3% 100%
Nebraska 130% 100% 100%
Nevada 200% 96.3% 99.9%
New Hampshire 185% 87.5% 100%
New Jersey 185% 93.8% 100%
New Mexico 165% 96.1% 100%
New York 200% 97.4% 99.3%
North Carolina 200% 95% 99.8%
North Dakota 200% 93.8% 100%
Ohio 130% 100% 100%
Oklahoma 130% 100% 100%
Oregon 185% 89% 100%
Pennsylvania 160% 93.5% 100%
Rhode Island 185% 93.1% 100%
South Carolina 130% 100% 100%
South Dakota 130% 100% 100%
Tennessee 130% 100% 100%
Texas 165% 95% 100%
Utah 130% 100% 100%
Vermont 185% 83.5% 100%
Virginia 130% 100% 100%
Washington 200% 92.2% 100%
West Virginia 130% 100% 100%
Wisconsin 200% 93.8% 100%
Wyoming 130% 100% 100%
-----------------------------------
Total........... 96.6% 99.9%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Authors' calculations based on data from the USDA quality
control database.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Hon. Mandela Barnes, Lieutenant
Governor, State of Wisconsin
Insert 1
Mr. Johnson. Yes. Do we have any idea how many of those
24,000 students come from families that are above 130 percent
of the Federal poverty line?
Mr. Barnes. I don't have that number, but I can get that to
you.
In June 2019, there were 171,811 children between the ages of 6 and
18 on FoodShare living in 92,939 households. Of those, 8,802 children
would have been expected to lose eligibility due to income if broad-
based categorical eligibility (BBCE) had been restricted to households
receiving substantial and ongoing TANF benefits and households had been
tested against 130% FPL on gross income and 100% FPL on net income.
Please note that: FoodShare households above 130% FPL on gross
income or above 100% FPL on net income in June 2019 did not receive
substantial or ongoing TANF benefits with the exception of Wisconsin
Shares childcare subsidies. Households receiving Wisconsin Shares
benefits were discounted from this total.
Households that only included members living with disabilities were
discounted from this total since they can qualify as eligible for
FoodShare through a different process than BBCE while having incomes
that exceed 200% FPL.
Wisconsin does not collect information from FoodShare members
regarding assets. The restriction of BBCE to households receiving
substantial and ongoing TANF benefits would be expected to result in
some households losing benefits due to asset testing. Since asset
information is not collected, it is not possible to calculate the
number of households and individuals below 130% FPL on gross income and
below 100% FPL on net income who could still be impacted.
The figure for June 2019 is much lower than the previous figure
from 2016 for several reasons. First, the 2016 figure was based on an
entire calendar year which likely included a substantial degree of
churn. Second, while total enrollment in June 2019 was 608,359
individuals (when the unemployment rate was 2.9%), average monthly
enrollment in calendar year 2016 was 718,272 (when unemployment
averaged 4.2%). It is probable that the people who have left FoodShare
were toward the upper levels of income among FoodShare households and
that declining unemployment resulted in a higher level of increased
level of labor force participation among FoodShare households that were
already above the poverty limit than those below the poverty limit.
Insert 1a
Mr. Johnson. Do you have any idea how many of them would be
more than 185 percent above the Federal poverty line?
Mr. Barnes. Same response. I don't have that exact number,
but I can get that to you.
If the limit was set at 185% FPL on gross income and 185% FPL on
net income in June 2019, 443 children between the ages of 6 and 18 on
FoodShare would have been expected to lose eligibility due to household
income. As with the previous estimate, this does not reflect the
possible impact of asset testing.
Insert 2
Mr. Yoho. . . .
Let me move on, because you said something else. ``It must be
noted that the categorical eligibility does not result in
substantial SNAP benefits going to non-needy families and does
not mean households automatically get SNAP. They must qualify
for benefits.''
Do you have a number that says what substantial is? Because
you said it's not substantial, the people that are not needy
getting these.
Mr. Barnes. Yes, I mean, we are talking about a few rare
occurrences. And, again----
Mr. Yoho. What percentage? What percentage of all----
Mr. Barnes. I can get that percentage back to you.
In June 2019, Wisconsin residents received $63,960,291 in Federal
SNAP benefits. If the proposed federal rule change had been in place,
and households above 130% FPL in gross income or above 100% FPL in net
income who were not receiving substantial and ongoing TANF benefits had
not been eligible, then Wisconsin would have received $920,832 less in
federal SNAP benefits. This is a decrease of 1.40%.
This compares to the impact to enrollment which would reduce
individual participants (all ages) by 6.25%, individual seniors by
19.98%, and households by 7.41%.
This is because SNAP is designed to gradually reduce benefits as
incomes go up.
______
Submitted Questions
Response from Lisa Davis, J.D., Senior Vice President, No Kid Hungry
Campaign, Share Our Strength **
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Editor's note: the eight documents (six articles and two
reports) referenced in this response are retained in Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question Submitted by Hon. Jimmy Panetta, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question. Ms. Davis, like you, I am deeply concerned about the
impacts of this proposal on children's nutrition, especially in
communities like the Pajaro Valley in my district, where all the
elementary and middle schools participate in the school meals program.
Ms. Davis, can you speak to the effects of this proposal on school
children's cognitive and physical development?
Answer. Research shows that childhood is a crucial milestone and a
sensitive period for active brain or cognitive and physical
development. However, adverse childhood experiences such as poverty and
food insecurity significantly contributes to toxic stress, leading to
cognitive dysfunction and unhealthy development for many low-income
children.\1\ In particular, food insecurity in households with children
is associated with deficits in cognitive development, behavioral
problems, insufficient intake of important nutrients and poor health
conditions in childhood.\2\ Other studies show that children who live
in a food insecure household have poorer and lower physical or
psychosocial functioning,\3\ and are more likely to be
``developmentally at risk'',\4\ thereby adversely affecting their
overall health and development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hughes, Michael. 2018. Poverty as an adverse childhood
experience. North Carolina Journal of Medical Policy Analysis and
Debate. Vol. 79(1). http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/content/79/2/
124.full.
\2\ John T. Cook and Deborah A. Frank. 2008. Food Security,
Poverty, and Human Development in the United States. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences. 193-209. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/
10.1196/annals.1425.001/epdf.
\3\ P.H., Casey, et al. 2005. Child health-related quality of life
and household food security. [Archives] of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630058.
\4\ R., Rose-Jacobs, et al. 2008. Household Food Insecurity:
associations with at-risk infant and toddler development. Pediatrics,
121(1). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18166558.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP benefits play a vital role in improving the cognitive and
physical development of children across the country. There is a strong
body of research demonstrating that participation in or receipt of SNAP
benefits is tied to a significant reduction in the level of food
insecurity among children and families. One study showed that SNAP
receipt is associated with a reduction in the likelihood of being food
insecure by roughly 30 percent and the likelihood of very-low-food
security by 20 percent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ratcliffe, Caroline and Signe-Mary McKernan. 2010. How Much
Does SNAP Reduce Food Insecurity? Urban Institute: https://
www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/84336/ccr-60.pdf?v=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest research from the National Academy of Sciences,
Engineering and Medicine underscores that, participation in SNAP is
associated with improving the overall well-being of children.\6\ Many
other studies also found that SNAP participation significantly reduced
the incidence of metabolic syndromes such as heart disease, obesity,
and diabetes, and an increase in reporting good health conditions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. 2019. A
Roadmap to Reducing Child Poverty. The National Academies Press.
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25246/a-roadmap-to-reducing-child-poverty.
\7\ Hoynes, Hilary, et al. 2016. Long-Run Impacts of Childhood
Access to Safety Net. American Economic Review, 106(4). https://
gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/Hoynes-Schanzenbach-
Almond-AER-2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restricting or eliminating the BBCE policy under SNAP would
significantly reduce the number of children living in households who
access SNAP, thereby putting them at greater risk of food insecurity
and the negative cognitive and health consequences associated with
this. These children will lose access to a program with demonstrated
effectiveness at improving the overall health and well-being of
children.
What will further compound the health consequences of losing these
SNAP benefits, is the added loss of their school meal access. No longer
being eligible for SNAP means they may also lose their eligibility for
free school meals. School lunch and breakfast are vital sources of
healthy food for many low-income children across the country. Research
shows that school meals provide better access to nutrition and vitamins
and minerals, including iron and vitamin E, that are crucial for brain
development.\8\ The research shows that the improved accessibility of
the School Breakfast Program contributes to improved memory and
cognitive achievements such as higher test score results among low-
income children.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Frisvold, David E. 2014. Nutrition and Cognitive Achievement:
An Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program. Journal of Public Econ.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4408552/; see also Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) fact sheet on the unique role
Child Nutrition Programs plays in improving access to healthy meals and
their contribution to improved cognitive performance and overall health
of school children. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/nutrition/
facts.htm.
\9\ Ibid, David.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, restricting access to both SNAP benefits and the school
meal programs by restricting or eliminating the BBCE policy under SNAP
will have a deleterious effect on the physical and mental development
of school children.
Response from Elaine Waxman, M.P.P., Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Income and
Benefits Policy Center, Urban Institute
Questions Submitted by Hon. Jimmy Panetta, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question 1. Broad-based categorical eligibility provides states the
ability to adjust the gross income eligibility requirement to better
reflect cost of living.
I understand that at least 88,000 households and 168,000
individuals in the state of California would lose their SNAP benefits
if states do not have the ability to adjust the gross income
eligibility requirement.
This flexibility is absolutely critical for SNAP participants in my
district, where the average price of a one-bedroom apartment in
Monterey County is $1,800.
Ms. Waxman, could you speak to the impact of eliminating broad-
based categorical eligibility on low-income families in states with
high cost of living, like California?
Answer. Thank you for the questions Congressman Panetta.
Eliminating BBCE could have a significant impact on low-income families
in many states, including states with a high cost of living, like
California. BBCE has been a particularly important option for states
that have both higher wages and higher costs of living, because it
allows families with incomes somewhat above the Federal gross income
limit of 130 percent of the Federal poverty level to apply for benefits
and have the impact of significant expenses for basic needs considered
in their eligibility determination. SNAP rules allow for the deduction
of certain expenses in determining whether a household's net income is
at or below the Federal poverty level. One of these expense categories
is what is known as excess shelter costs: the amount that a household
may be paying for housing that is in excess of 50 percent of the
household's income after other deductions are considered. California is
one of the top states for households experiencing severe rental cost
burden and these households may be particularly likely to sacrifice the
purchase of healthy adequate diets in order to keep their housing.
Question 2. Do you think it is fair for all states to be held to
the same gross income limit when there are such large discrepancies in
cost of living?
Answer. Low-income families struggle to meet basic needs in all
areas of the country, but these challenges can be particularly acute in
areas with high costs of living. The intent of BBCE, which was
reaffirmed by Congress in the most recent farm bill, is to provide
states with flexibility in setting a gross income limit that is
responsive to the economic circumstances in their state. California
currently uses (https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/
resource-files/BBCE2019.pdf) * the BBCE program to allow for families
up to 200 percent FPL to participate in the CalFresh program. By
allowing the gross income limit to be at 200 percent of FPL instead of
130 percent FPL for SNAP benefits for families, a state can help
mitigate a potential benefit ``cliff''--or the risk that a family could
be worse off if they are working to increase earnings. This flexibility
is important to support working families, as well as all households
facing high costs of living.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the fact sheet entitled, Broad-Based Categorical
Eligibility, is retained in Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The challenge of variation in costs of living across the country is
also seen in the shortfall in SNAP benefits when relative price of food
is taken into account. Geographic variation in costs is not taken into
account when benefits are calculated. Nationally, the maximum SNAP
benefit per meal is $1.86, but the average cost of a low-income meal in
Monterey County (https://www.urban.org/does-snap-cover-cost-meal-your-
county) is $2.48--33 percent more than the per meal SNAP benefit.
[all]