NEW PROPOSALS FOR SNAP IMPROVEMENT

SNAP and the earned income tax credit (EITC) are the cornerstones of the social safety net. In 2014, SNAP kept 8.4 million people, including 3.8 million children, out of poverty. Because the EITC is designed to provide benefits only when a household has an employed worker, its effectiveness is limited in times of high unemployment. On the other hand, SNAP can both support work when it is available and serve as insurance, propping up food consumption levels during periods of unemployment. A new report lays out SNAP’s benefits, the characteristics of SNAP recipients, and its effects on families and the American economy.  It also proposes several ways to strengthen SNAP for the future:

• Increase the earned income deduction from 20% to 30%. This would increase monthly benefits by $40 on average, increase incentives to work, and increase food purchasing power for families with workers.
• Increase investment in the SNAP employment and training program would help states move more participants into the workforce.
• Boost federal support to help states purchase the “work number” service, which provides real-time data on employment and wages and can be used for data verification.The service may help improve fraud and error rates of other means-tested programs such as school meals.

Source: American Enterprise Institute, 11/6/17, SNAP Improvements

WHICH FEDERAL PROGRAMS PROVIDE THE MOST SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN?

Most federal support for children doesn’t come from classic children’s programs like Head Start, but from Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and tax credits—programs more often associated with adults. In 2016, the federal government spent $377 billion (10% of the $3.9 trillion federal budget) on children through programs and refundable tax credits.

An additional $108 billion in tax reductions was targeted to families with children, bringing total federal expenditures on children to $486 billion. At $89 billion, Medicaid is the largest source of federal spending on children. The next three largest programs are tax provisions: the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and the dependent exemption. SNAP is the fifth-largest source of expenditures on children, providing $31 billion in benefits in 2016. Child nutrition programs, including the school lunch and breakfast programs, provided another $22 billion.

Source: Urban Institute, 10/31/17, Federal Support for Kid

FOOD STAMPS WON’T BUY A HEALTHY DIET

SNAP (formerly called food stamps) isn’t enough for families to afford the healthy diet the federal government recommends. It would cost a family of four, with two adults and two children, as much as $627 more per month than they receive in food stamps to eat the recommended healthy diet, according to new research. The recommended diet, as expressed in USDA’s MyPlate, suggests putting fruit and vegetables on half a plate, and protein and grains on the other half. The daily recommendation for women ages 31 to 50 is 1.5 cups of fruit; 2.5 cups of vegetables; 6 servings of grains (a slice of bread is a serving); and 5 servings of protein (an ounce of meat or an egg is a serving). Researchers considered a variety of ways a family could meet the dietary recommendations. The most expensive way is to eat all fresh food. The least expensive diet is vegetarian, evenly divided between fresh, frozen, and canned food.

Source: Charlotte (NC) News Observer, 10/20/17, SNAP-Diet Gap

SENATE BUDGET HELPS FOOD PROGRAMS

The fiscal 2018 budget that the Senate passed last week could make moot the $10 billion in cuts to agriculture programs that were in the House version - a move that makes passage of the next farm bill easier. Backers of SNAP had been bracing for the prospect that the House spending cuts would be squarely aimed at welfare programs including food stamps. But the Senate version does not include the $203 billion in spending reductions the House had incorporated. The House and Senate need to pass identical budgets if Republicans want to fast-track the budget and avoid hammering out differences in the two versions over weeks and weeks in conference committee. There is a lot of pressure on the House to adopt the Senate version so that lawmakers can get onto the business of tax reform.  But SNAP may still be in bull's-eye: For instance, Rep. Mark Walker - who supports the House's proposed cuts to welfare and entitlement programs - asked GOP leaders to commit to separate votes on a balanced budget amendment and other deficit-reduction legislation.

Source: Politico, 10/23/17, Senate Budget

SNAP HELPS CUT CHILD POVERTY IN HALF

Thanks to government programs, the child poverty rate fell to a record low of 15.6% in 2016, a little more than half its 1967 level of 28.4%.  Data incorporating the Supplemental Poverty Measure (which  counts the income that the SNAP, rental subsidies, and other federal non-cash benefits and tax credits provide) show that the drop is largely attributable to safety net programs, particularly SNAP and refundable tax credits for earned income and child care. This improvement has benefited all demographic groups.  Between 1991 and 2016, SPM poverty rates among black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white children were all cut roughly in half.  When poverty is measured without counting safety net income, child poverty is only modestly lower than it was in the 1960s.  

Source: Center for Budget & Policy Priorities, 10/5/17, Child Poverty

SNAP MAY BE BEST PATH TO SENIORS’ HEALTH

A recent study demonstrated that access to SNAP results in fewer hospital and nursing home admissions. Researchers studied the entire population of 69,000 Maryland seniors who are on both Medicaid and Medicare (known as “dual eligibles”).  The results were remarkable.  Access to SNAP reduced a senior’s likelihood of admission into a hospital by 14% and reduced the likelihood of entrance into a nursing home by 23%.  The study also found that the more SNAP dollars seniors received for healthy food, the lower the odds they would have to spend additional days in a hospital and nursing home. And, because connecting seniors to SNAP results in lower healthcare utilization and better health, it also leads to health care savings.  The researchers estimated that connecting dual eligibles to SNAP delivers $2,100 in annual healthcare savings per senior enrolled.

Source: Philly.com, 9/26/17, SNAP Benefits Seniors

ADMINISTRATION MAY REVIEW ALL WELFARE PROGRAMS

Trump administration officials are mulling an executive order that would instruct federal agencies to review low-income assistance programs, including SNAP and WIC,  as part of an effort to make sweeping changes to the country’s welfare system. The White House has begun circulating a draft order to federal agencies for comment. The draft order calls on agencies to review existing regulations and propose new rules that conform to a set of broad welfare principles, including tighter work requirements that encourage recipients to shift back into the labor force. It also calls for streamlining or eliminating duplicative services and establishing metrics for holding agencies accountable for program performance.

Source: Politico, 10/2/17, Welfare Review

ADVOCATES FEAR FEDERAL FOOD PROGRAM CUTS

Last year, about 12.3% of American households were food insecure, down from a peak of 14.9% in 2011. But anti-hunger advocates worry that the Trump administration and Congress are poised to undo that progress. The White House and Republicans in Congress argue that SNAP costs too much (about $71 billion last year) and doesn't do enough to encourage recipients to work. The Trump administration is calling for $190 billion cuts over 10 years for SNAP. The U.S. House Budget Committee has similarly proposed at least $150 billion in SNAP cuts over 10 years, starting with fiscal year 2018. The proposals would reduce SNAP benefits spending between 21% and 27% a year.  The good news--over the summer, Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway, a Republican, reportedly resisted the large cuts. And it's unclear whether centrist Republicans will back a plan that makes dramatic cuts to SNAP, which could complicate budget negotiations this fall.

Source: Governing, 9/25/17, Potential SNAP Cuts

WAIVING THE SAFETY NET

Several Republican senators have introduced the EMPOWERS Act (the Economic Mobility, Prosperity, and Opportunity with Waivers that Enable Reforms for States Act of 2017), which would let states waive or sharply alter key provisions of federal safety net programs that serve low-income individuals and families.  The bill would allow waivers in some 25 federally funded programs that provide over $150 billion annually in benefits and services to help low-income individuals and families. Those programs include SNAP and WIC; federal housing programs; and child welfare, job training, and child care programs, among others. States could have flexibility under EMPOWERS waivers to redirect federal funds that now provide benefits directly to families to help them meet their basic needs.  They could cut benefits such as basic food aid provided by SNAP, and shift the freed-up funds to a wide array of other services such as case management. Or they could divert funds from basic assistance for families in need to other areas of the state budget by using the funds freed up by cutting benefits to supplant existing state spending in other areas.

Source: Center for Budget & Policy Priorities, 9/28/17, Safety Net Waivers

DO SAFETY NET ASSET LIMITS BENEFIT STATES?

Low-income families receive federal financial support through more than a dozen programs, including SNAP. States administer the programs and can set eligibility requirements, which typically limit household income and the dollar value of liquid holdings such as cash, savings, and material property, like cars. Opponents of these limits argue that they discourage low-income households from saving for self-sufficiency; supporters say the strict guidelines efficiently allocate government resources. A recent issue brief examines the findings of three studies that looked at the effect of asset limits on family finances and state and program costs and obligations. Taken together, these analyses indicate that enforcing asset limits returns no clear benefits to states, as relaxing or eliminating them does not increase program enrollment or participation. However, while removing limits does not meaningfully affect households’ assets, doing so may reduce barriers to family financial well-being as measured by bank account and vehicle ownership.

Source: Pew Trusts, 9/28/17, Do Asset Limits Work?

SNAP BENEFIT MAY LOWER HEALTH CARE SPENDING

Enrollment in SNAP may be associated with lower health spending, a new study suggests. Researchers examined data on health spending for U.S. adults who were eligible for SNAP, including 1,889 people who were SNAP participants and 2,558 who were not. Overall, the study found,SNAP participation was associated with about $1,400 less in average annual health care costs for each low-income adult. There wasn’t much difference in annual health spending based on SNAP participation when researchers only accounted for two factors that can influence medical costs – age and gender. The difference was much more pronounced, however, when researchers also considered race, region, insurance, education, income, disability and other medical problems. When all of those factors were taken into account, SNAP enrollees had average annual health spending that was $1,409 less than people who didn’t participate in the program.

Source: Huffington Post, 9/26/17, Health Care Spending

TEST SCORES DROP WHEN SNAP RUN OUT

A new study that confirms that it’s harder to think when you’re hungry. The study’s authors matched up the timing of math tests in South Carolina to the dates when low-income students’ families received monthly SNAP benefits. They found that kids’ test scores dropped at times of the month when nutrition benefits had run out. Put another way, access to SNAP substantially improves students’ academic performance—but only when there are actually enough benefits for families to be able to eat. Running out of SNAP benefits isn’t an anomaly—nearly half of participating families run out before the end of the month. Many previous studies have demonstrated the long-term effects of food insecurity on children; this study shows that the effect of losing SNAP benefits is immediate.

Source: Talk Poverty, 9/25/17, Test Scores

FOOD STAMPS--A HISTORY LESSON AND BIPARTISAN MODEL

Forty years ago--September 29,1977--President Carter signed into law the landmark 1977 Food Stamp Act, setting the framework for today’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The 1977 law and its bipartisan roots both were years in the making. Food stamps began as a pilot program in 1961 and was converted to permanent status in 1964, but it wasn’t yet a nationwide program and wasn’t doing enough to address hunger. Tens years later the program served the whole nation. When President Ford sought in 1975 to cut food stamp benefits sharply by regulation, Congress passed legislation to block the measure by bipartisan, veto-proof margins. The Food Stamp Act that Carter signed in 1977, which passed Congress with bipartisan support, included the most far-reaching improvements in the program’s history. It eliminated the “purchase requirement” — that recipients must pay cash to purchase their food stamps (for example, having to pay $90 to receive $200 in food stamps rather than just receiving the $110 difference). Until then, only about half of those eligible for benefits were receiving them, in large part because many potential beneficiaries could not come up with the lump sums of cash needed to buy food stamps every month. And it took important steps to simplify the program, reduce administrative costs, and combat fraud.

Source: Center for Budget & Policy Priorities, 9/26/17, Food Stamp History

SNAP ENCOURAGES WORK

SNAP plays an important role in encouraging and supporting work a new report says. Most SNAP participants who can work, do work. The program’s benefit structure is designed to reward earnings over unearned income, giving participants an incentive to work.  Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80% work in the year before or after receiving SNAP. SNAP’s benefit design has four key features that support work:

• An entitlement structure that guarantees food assistance will be available to any eligible applicant when they need it;
• A benefit formula that favors earned income over other income through an earned income deduction;
• A benefit phase out structure that decreases benefits gradually as income rises; and
• A state option to ease the modest benefit cliff.

Source: Center for Budget & Policy Priorities, 7/25/17, SNAP Work Incentives

SNAP use is highest in rural areas and small towns

Households in counties determined by the U.S. Census Bureau to be rural and small town are more likely to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) than their metro area counterparts, according to SNAP Maps, a new interactive data tool released today by the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC). Nationally, over the five years studied, on average, 16 percent of rural and small town households participated in SNAP, compared to 13 percent of households in metro areas. On a state-by-state and county-by county basis, rural and small town participation is typically higher

“No community in America is immune to hunger, but rural and small town areas are especially hard hit,” said Jim Weill, president, FRAC.

Census Bureau data show 15 percent of non-metro households and 12 percent of metro households are food insecure. These new state-by-state and county-by-county analyses show a virtually identical pattern in SNAP participation.

According to FRAC, this new data tool will allow local, state, and national policymakers and program administrators, as well as advocates, media, and others, to understand how substantial numbers of struggling families in every county across the country need help from SNAP. It will also serve to dispel too-frequently repeated myths and stereotypes.

“SNAP serves as the first line of defense against hunger and is critical to keeping and lifting low-income households — including massive numbers in rural and small town areas — out of poverty and hunger,” added Weill. “SNAP is one of the nation’s very best investments, and it is unacceptable that this proven and effective program is under attack.”

Both the president’s fiscal year (FY) 2018 budget and the House Budget Committee’s FY 2018 budget resolution propose dramatic cuts to SNAP. The House budget resolution, which is expected to be voted on in September, gives reconciliation instructions to the House Agriculture Committee to make $10 billion in cuts over 10 years to programs in its jurisdiction — a reduction clearly pointed at SNAP. The budget also calls for another $150 billion in SNAP cuts through benefit and eligibility restrictions and structural changes in the latter part of the 10-year budget window.

To learn more, visit FRAC.org.

HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTION CALLS FOR DANGEROUS CUTS

The House Budget Committee has “marked up” its FY 2018 Budget Resolution, the first step in the budget process.  The “reconciliation” instructions on which the budget is based require $203 billion in mandatory spending through savings and reforms over 10 years. That includes likely SNAP cuts of $10 billion over 10 years, and apparently $1.6 billion/10 years in cuts from eliminating thousands of schools from the School Meal Community Eligibility Provision. The budget resolution, though, goes further, assuming $150 billion in SNAP reductions, which would kick in halfway through the decade, and $20 billion from Earned Income  and Child Tax credits. The committee’s budget blueprint “recommends focusing on reforms that will restore overall SNAP funding to sustainable levels, while still providing states the flexibility to tailor the program to best meet the needs of their SNAP-eligible populations.” It also calls for states to enforce SNAP work requirements to better ensure that public assistance transitions people to independence. The blueprint also proposes requiring verification of income before Earned Income Tax Credits are paid and using the resulting savings to eliminate tax penalties for marriage. In addition, the budget would require people seeking the refundable child tax credit to submit a Social Security number for each child in order to claim the credit.

House Budget Committee, 7/19/17, Budget Blueprint

SCHOOL NUTRITION STANDARDS

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue this week celebrated and defended the Trump administration's recent controversial move to relax some of the school-nutrition standards championed by former first lady Michelle Obama. Perdue spoke to the crowd of some 7,000 professionals at the School Nutrition Association’s (SNA) annual conference in Atlanta. Perdue was adamant that the administration’s new policy isn't a step backward. He asserted that the administration is simply “freezing things in place to help us evaluate what the palatability, what the acceptance of these changes have been and to reduce the burdens on schools to get you back to feeding kids and not doing paperwork so much anymore.” Perdue said he wants SNA to help USDA make school nutrition standards better.

Source: Politico, 7/13/17, School Meal Standards

CONSERVATIVES SCOLD GOP CONGRESSMAN OVER SNAP

The conservative group Heritage Action scolded House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas) this past week for his reticence to cut SNAP.  Conaway is in ongoing discussions with Budget Committee Chairman Diane Black over potential cuts to the SNAP program. Black has twice postponed the release of the budget proposal over conservative demands that further cuts be made to entitlement and welfare programs, such as SNAP. While the budget committee can mandate the level of cuts, it is up to the specific committee chairs to fill in the details. Conaway retorted that Heritage Action has “been advocates for raising the cost of food for the most vulnerable in our society for years, and they’re sticking with that treatment.”

Source: The Hill, 6/29/17, Conservatives Battle Over SNAP

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES NEED SNAP

People with disabilities are likelier to live in poverty, families with children with disabilities are likelier to face hardships such as an inability to pay rent, and families with members with severe disabilities have rates of food insecurity close to three times higher than other families. Food insecurity can be especially harmful for people with disabilities, as an insufficient diet can worsen some disabling or chronic conditions. Many SNAP participants with disabilities receive benefits such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). But many others have impairments that aren’t severe enough to qualify them for disability benefits; still others have applied for SSI or SSDI but haven’t yet been approved. About 40% of non-disabled adult SNAP participants with an impairment receive neither SSI nor SSDI. That’s important because if these individuals aren’t considered disabled under SNAP program rules, they might not be protected if a new Farm Bill exempts people with disabilities from SNAP eligibility or benefits cuts.

Source: Center for Budget & Policy Priorities, 6/15/17, SNAP & Disabilities

U.S. Senator Gillibrand is recipient of NYS Anti-Hunger Champion Award

From our partners at Hunger Solutions New York:  

The Anti-Hunger Champion Award honors New York State leaders who have taken strategic and decisive steps to reduce hunger in our state and beyond. The 2017 award was presented to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand at the May 17 NYS Anti-Hunger Conference, in recognition of her tireless efforts to protect and defend the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), strengthen core child nutrition programs, and to ensure every New Yorker has access to enough healthy food. 

WATCH HER ACCEPTANCE SPEECH