Thanks!
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program
Final Paper
Denis R. Lachapelle
Southern New Hampshire University
Introduction
“It’s a messed-up
situation.” Danny Lamb is 41. He lives in Pittsburg, Kansas. And he is the face of food insecurity in the
United States. “You got people who
really do depend on a little bit of assistance through the state," Lamb
said. "It seems like they really don't care if somebody goes hungry or
whatever" (Efrenfreund & Ferdman, 2016).
The USDA defines Danny as
an “ABAWD”, Able Bodied Adult Without Dependents. This definition limits his ability to collect
assistance. Danny has been filling out employment
applications for several weeks. He does not have a degree and has bad knees,
old football injuries from high school, that restrict the kind of work he can
do. And since his 8-year-old son lives
with the boy's mother, Lamb legally has no dependents.
Danny is an example of
the one in eight people struggling with hunger in the United States. Poverty, often caused by unemployment or
under-employment, and job instability are the leading causes of food insecurity
and hunger in the United States. Food
insecurity describes a household’s inability to provide enough food for every
person to live an active, healthy life (Feeding America, 2018). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) benefits, formally known as food stamps, provide a fundamental safety
net for over 42 million Americans (USDA, 2018).
These benefits are considered the fundamental safety net in the United
States and are the only public assistance program that is available to all
family types (Hoynes & Schanzenbach, 2012).
What does SNAP do?
SNAP benefits, as the
name implies, are supplemental. The
benefits are designated to be a supplement to food purchases made with a
household’s own income. SNAP can be used
at supermarkets, large and small grocery stores, convenience stores, and
farmers markets to purchase foods for use at home or seeds for plants to
produce food. Alcohol and tobacco cannot
be purchased. (USDA, 2012)
Who is Responsible for SNAP?
Individual states
administer the SNAP program and certification of eligibility for SNAP benefits,
however these benefits are 100% federally funded. Benefits are provided via an electronic debit
card to most households with gross income less than 130 percent of the federal
poverty guidelines (USDA, 2017).
| (130 percent of poverty) | (100 percent of poverty) | Maximum Benefit Allotment | |
| 1 | $1,307 | $1,005 | $192 |
| 2 | $1,760 | $1,354 | $352 |
| 3 | $2,213 | $1,702 | $504 |
| 4 | $2,665 | $2,050 | $640 |
| 5 | $3,118 | $2,399 | $760 |
| 6 | $3,571 | $2,747 | $913 |
| 7 | $4,024 | $3,095 | $1,009 |
| 8 | $4,477 | $3,444 | $1,153 |
| Each additional member | $453 | $349 | $144 |
| SNAP Income Eligibility Limits - October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018 | |||
SNAP’s budget is
administered by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). As part of the USDA, it shares an annual
budget with other areas including farm and foreign agricultural services, rural
development, food safety, and natural resources and environment. Within the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer
Services department, SNAP is just one program of many that domestic nutrition
assistance programs including WIC (Women, Infants, and Children), TEFAP (The
Emergency Food Assistance Program), and FDPIR (Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations). Combined, these
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services programs make up over 70% of the USDA’s
budget annually (USDA Budget, 2016).
The History of Food Stamps
At the height of the latest
financial crisis, December 2012, an all-time high of 47.8 million Americans
participated in SNAP (LaRose, 2016).
Today, an estimated 42 million people rely on SNAP to supplement their
household food purchases. Formally known
as Food Stamps, there have been federally supported governmental programs
successfully providing surplus food as early as 1939. Between 1939 and 1944 over 20 million people
were provided with surplus food through the Food Stamp program (USDA, 2017). The modern Food Stamp program dates back to
President Kennedy’s first executive order which established a pilot program in
eight counties. This was later expanded
in 1964 into The Food Stamp Act as part of President Johnson’s Great Society
program. Its goal was to strengthen the
agricultural economy and to provide improved levels of nutrition among
low-income households. The program took
several years to ramp up and did not universally cover the United States until
1975 as funding controlled its growth (Hoynes & Schanzenbach, 2012). With the passage of the Farm Bill of 2008 the
Food Stamp program was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Why is SNAP controversial?
Historically there has
been a belief in an “Ideology of the Dole”: a belief that many relief
recipients were “undeserving poor”, lazy, immigrants, people of color, unwed
mothers, and did not want to work (Rose, 1989).
That belief carries over to the impression people have of SNAP
recipients. They have no intention to
take part in the “American Dream” but wish to be dependent on the Federal
Government. In contrast, four out of
five recipients are employed (Redden, 2013).
Low unemployment rates mask the reality that the working poor and many
low-skilled workers are trending towards more precarious job conditions, with
fluctuating schedules, low hours, and irregular paychecks. Roughly 4 in 10 workers who are paid hourly
are informed of their schedules less than a week in advance. "Even if you get a job, you're not
guaranteed more than 20 hours a week" (Efrenfreund & Ferdman, 2016).
Taking
a Side
From the earliest days of
the colonies, there has been publicly funded relief for the poor and dependent
people. Local government officials were
given the authority to raise taxes as needed to build and manage poorhouses,
supply food, and put the able bodied to work (or in prison). Colonial legislatures and later the States
passed legislation that established the tradition of public responsibility for
care of the poor (Hansen, 2011). Yet
prior to the Great Depression, most of this relief was handled at the local and
town level by local government units and charities (Rose, 1989). This changed with the New Deal, and
specifically with the passage of The Social Security Act of 1935. This was the first time that the government,
at a federal level, had attempted to protect the health and well-being of the
nation.
As the United States has
continued to grow into a country of spread across 2.3 billion acres with over
300 million citizens, the national welfare state has grown. It is no longer a question as to whether or
not the government addresses the issues of poverty and hunger but is now a
debate as to the degree to which the Federal Government responds.
Is it the Government’s Job to Fight
the War on Poverty?
President Johnson, in his
1964 State of the Union Address stated the goal of the War on Poverty was,
“…not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to
prevent it” (Johnson, 1964). But after
more than fifty years, has the war been successful? Adjusting for inflation, over 21 trillion
dollars have been spent on various entitlement programs including Head Start, Food
Stamps, and Medicare (Woodhill 2014). Yet
rather than reduce poverty, this has only increased the size of the welfare
state and possibly changed the very moral fiber of our country. In 1967, 14.2% of Americans fell below the
poverty line. Thirty-eight years later,
in 2005, 12.7% of Americans fell below the poverty line – based on US Census
Bureau data from the March Current Population Surveys (Grieger, 2009). The government pushed forward with plans
that were supposed to help America’s poor become self-sufficient, but measured
against these statistics, it can be argued that the war has been a failure.
Looking at just the
changes in poverty rate is a simplistic approach to assessing Johnson’s War on
Poverty. The question should be, what
would the rate of poverty have been without the government programs? Government programs have played a large role
in maintaining a flat rate in growth for poverty. Without the anti-poverty programs in place,
it is estimated that poverty levels would be at the 27-29% (Wimer, 2013).
A Handout or a Helping Hand
Many government programs
fall into the category of entitlements: housing assistance, Pell grants, Head
Start, LIHEAP, Lifeline, and the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax
Credit. Each of these programs provide
benefits to segments of the American population. With issues as complex and politically
charged as entitlements, it is not possible to arbitrarily end them, however, limitations
and budgetary restraints are often put in place to slow the growth or prevent
abuse.
Each program has its own
unique set of rules and regulations. The
eligibility and benefit stipend size for SNAP is determined by several
criteria: income, household composition, citizenship/immigration status, and
resources. As earnings increase, the system
automatically adjusts benefits amount, weaning the recipient off the program.
SNAP recipients are also
limited if they are classified as ABAWD.
North Carolina recently implemented its policies regarding Able-Bodied
Adults Without Dependents. These adults,
aged 18 to 49, without dependents or children under the age of 18, and able to
work, are subject to a 3-month maximum benefit within a 36-month period if they
do not work a minimum of 20 hours per week or 80 hours per month (NCDHHS,
2016). The program is designed to
provided incentive to look for work or enroll in job training.
The Local Food Pantry Should Not Be
the Only Answer
SNAP was designed to be
supplemental, but for many it doesn’t work out that way. Many people do not have sufficient income
after paying for rent and utilities, they have no money left for food or
medicine. "One of the solutions the
government has put out there is telling people to go to their local food bank,
but we don't have the resources to step in in place of the government,"
said Margarette Purvis, president of the Food Bank for New York City. "This whole thing is not about whether
or not they need food," she said. "That's a big problem. These people
desperately need the help" (Efrenfreund & Ferdman, 2016).
Food Insecurity
dramatically increased during the Great Recession of 2008 and its aftermath due
to the sharp rise in unemployment. By
2011, the rate of households classified as food insecure nationally had peaked
at 15% - a figure 34% higher than before the recession. Most dramatically, post-recession the
fraction of food insecure households has remained significantly higher than a
decade before. (Executive Office, 2015)
“We have a lot of elderly
clients that come in here every day,” stated Roy Jarrard, volunteer coordinator
of Samaritan Kitchen of Wilkes, a North Carolina based food pantry. “Many of them have custody of their
grandchildren. Their food stamps are
sometimes as low as 15 dollars a month where last year they were getting 100
dollars. We see on average 1000 families
a month”
Samaritan Kitchen of
Wilkes is one of many organizations that work together with Feeding America. Feeding America is one of the most well-known
and largest of the private organizations that helps to fight hunger every
day. As a network of over 200 food banks
across the nation, it works with its 60,000-member organizations to help
distribute surplus food to over 46 million people annually (Feeding America). Feeding America believes the “SNAP is our
nation’s first line of defense against hunger,” furthermore, “Hunger is
unacceptable, particularly because it is solvable” (Weill, 2017).
A
Proposal to Fix a Broken System
The Farm Bill
The primary source of
appropriations for SNAP came in 2014 from the most recent Farm Bill. Farm Bills are renewed approximately every
five years, which gives Congress a predictable opportunity to comprehensively
review agricultural and food issues. The
most recent farm bill, the Agricultural Act of 2014, is an omnibus, multi-year
law that governs an array of agricultural and food programs. SNAP comprised 80% of the nutrition component
of the bill. Under the Farm Bill,
nutrition assistance programs including TEFAP, a program that provides USDA
foods and federal support to food banks and food pantries like the Food Bank of
New York City and Samaritan Kitchen of Wilkes, are also supported. Outside of nutritional assistance programs,
the bill covers an array of other agricultural and farm commodity programs
(Johnson & Monke, 2017).
The House Committee on
Agriculture, chaired by Representative K. Michael Conaway (Republican, Texas),
oversees funding for the USDA, and specifically the Nutrition Subcommittee,
chaired by Jackie Walorski (Republican, Indiana), oversees the SNAP
program. In 2016, the Committee
submitted a report of an audit they conducted of SNAP. They found that since other forms of welfare
had become more difficult to obtain and since SNAP’s eligibility criteria was
more relaxed, SNAP had become a catchall for individuals and families that
received no or lower benefits from those other programs. The net effect was to increase in SNAP
enrollment. To adjust for this increase
in enrollment, the report pointed out that “the need for nutrition assistance
cannot be addressed by just one program or just one group—it requires more
collaboration between governments, charities, businesses, health systems,
communities, individuals, and many others” (Conway, 2016).
The 2018 Farm Bill (New)
Currently in committee is
the 2018 Farm Bill. There are likely to
be two major issues that will be discussed.
The first will be a change or possible increase to the ABAWD guidelines
to 30 hours, and the second will be limitations to limit what people can buy
with SNAP benefits. There is continuing
debate in restricting the use of SNAP benefits for soda and other “unhealthy”
products (Vilsack, 2018). In 2015 the
TEFAP program was converted to block grant funding. There is also a good possibility that there
will be discussion of transitioning SNAP to block grant funding.
Also new to the table
will be President Trump’s recent recommendation of the “Harvest Box” Program. The proposal is that households participating
in SNAP that receive more than $90 per month would receive a package of food in
lieu of monetary benefits. The program
claims proposed savings over ten years of over $129 billion. It does not address religious or dietary
restrictions, costs for transportation and logistics, or losses to retail
grocers.
Groups including Feeding
America have already come out against these proposed changes. Diana Aviv, CEO stated, “Our message to
elected officials is this: No structural changes, no block grants, and no
budget cuts for federal nutrition programs that help low-income Americans.” (Weill,
2018)
Block Grants
A sweeping set of welfare
reforms pushed through Congress in 1996.
One of the major reforms was made to AFDC. The cash welfare program known as AFDC (Aid
to Families with Dependent Children) was converted into a new program known as
TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).
Two major changes were made to the program. The first was a work and activity requirement
for benefits. The second was changing
the funding to block grants (Conway, 2016).
A block grant is a
consolidation of several categorical grants into one single grant. In theory, block grants provide states and
cities considerable freedom in determining how to spend money while helping to
relieve their tax burdens. History has
proven that block grants present more problems than they solve. Block grants tend to have four issues:
·
The amount of money available from of the
block grants do not grow as fast as the states had hoped or as fast as it had
through categorical grants;
·
The federal government continued to attach
strings to supposedly “unrestricted” money;
·
They tended to grow slower than
categorical grants because of the nature of the kinds of political coalitions
supporting each type. Liberal
politicians and interest groups tend to distrust the states, so they tend to
support categorical grants. Conservative
politicians and interest groups tend to support the states over the federal
government and thus support block grants;
·
Because block grants cover such a wide
range of activities, no single organization or interest group has a vital stake
in enlarging the grant (Wilson, 2017).
Congress in considering
proposals to make SNAP a block grant program with the 2018 Farm Bill. "The way to think about this block grant
proposal is it's a placeholder that the Republicans have put on the table as a
way of signaling that they believe the SNAP program has to be changed, whether
it's actually a block grant or not" (Fessler, 2015).
By converting SNAP to a
block grant program, individual states would have control over the allocation
of funds, possibly making deep cuts in eligibility and benefits., or allocate
the funds to other uses. Additionally,
by adding 54 or more additional layers of bureaucracy (each of the fifty states
controlling their own budget, plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico,
and Federal Indian Reservations), they will be less likely to be responsive to
economic downturns or crises, either national (e.g. recession) or localized (e.g.
natural disaster).
A Three-Point Plan for Reform
A proactive approach must
be taken in order to protect the majority of benefits that SNAP provides. With the 2018 Farm Bill under consideration,
and the potential for massive funding changes and restructuring of the program,
it is essential that the report the House Committee on Agriculture prepared on
SNAP be analyzed to see where changes in the program can be made that maintain
and expand benefits where appropriate while protecting it for years to come. Thus, I propose a three-pronged strategy of
1) ABAWD reform with an enhanced training and job placement program, 2)
Expansion of benefits for children and the elderly with a partnership with
Medicare and Medicaid and a focus on nutrition, and 3) a focus on fraud
enforcement and penalties.
ABAWD
Reform and Training
"Making people
hungrier isn't going to make them find work faster," said Rebecca Vallas,
managing director of the Poverty to Prosperity Program at the Center for
American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. "One of the most helpful
things for someone looking for work is helping them not worry about putting
food on the table" (Efrenfreund & Ferdman, 2016).
The current debate is for
possible tightening of the requirements for ABAWD. Based on the Wisconsin FoodShare program, the
proposal would require the recipient to be working 30 hours per week or earning
the equivalent of 30 hours at minimum wage to qualify for benefits. There are exemptions for students,
caregivers, and other reasons (FoodShare Wisconsin Handbook, 2018) .
ABAWD requirements target
people who are already dealing with food insecurity due to unemployment or
underemployment. The requirements for
ABAWDs need to be reduced or maintained at current levels. Additionally, to help get people off of the
program altogether, we need to increase opportunities for job training and
placement. Former Agriculture Secretary
Tom Vilsack gave high praise to programs in Vermont and Mississippi. While their programs were vastly different,
Vermont targeted hard-to-employ individuals, like homeless or ex-cons, for
special help getting work, and Mississippi gave recipients a four-week
intensive job readiness courses. Vilsack said the goal was to find which
methods worked best and apply them nationwide. (Fessler, 2015)
"These are, again,
adults - no dependents, physically and mentally capable of working," Rob
Nichols, a spokesman for Kasich's presidential campaign, said in a recent
interview. "Just as much as we believe in the social safety net, we also
believe it's a sin not to help oneself" (Efrenfreund & Ferdman,
2016). Therefore, if we can follow the
lead of Vermont and Mississippi and provide intensive job training and
placement, we can begin to alleviate the need for SNAP.
Benefits
for Children and Elderly
Close to half of all
participants in SNAP are children, and over half of all non-elderly,
non-disabled adult participants live with children (CBPP, 2017). And 8% of all children nationally are food
insecure (USDA – ERS, 2017).
Childhood hunger and food
insecurity, is associated with many health and developmental issues including
poor social and emotional development, less advanced mental proficiency,
anxiety and depression, and poor self-control.
Inadequate diet may also impede children’s ability to perform
academically (Executive Office of the President, 2015).
Organizations like
Samaritan Kitchen of Wilkes and other food pantries offer backpack programs to
assist children to supplement their diets on the weekend. Roy Jarrard explained that in Wilkes County,
NC, Samaritan Kitchen has seen a 13% jump in the number of students receiving
supplemental food backpacks. “We have
given out over 13 thousand bags already this school year, that’s over 53
thousand pounds of food to children in 21 schools who otherwise would go hungry
over the weekend. 700 children every
week get two ready to eat breakfasts, lunches, and dinners, plus snacks in each
bag. I know they’ll have food through
the school year, but I worry about these kids during the Summer when school is
out.”
According to Eric
Schneidewind with AARP, “Elderly households, which are defined as those with an
individual over age 60, represented 19 percent of all SNAP recipients in FY
2014.” Many of these seniors have
specialized diets or very specific dietary needs. These can be difficult to afford on a limited
budget. Certain illnesses, such as
diabetes, require special consideration.
When dietary restrictions are not followed, health expenses rise. The USDA does have some programs to address
senior needs, including assignment of card benefits and the CSFP (Commodity
Supplemental Food Program), and some food banks are equipped to assist in
providing a larger range of healthy alternatives for families with dietary
restrictions. However, the increasing
number of seniors with dietary restrictions poses a significant challenge
(Conway, 2016).
The current proposal by
the Trump administration for the Harvest Basket program reduces the amount of benefits
by half, replacing it with food. Without
taking into consideration these specialized diets or dietary restrictions, much
of this food will be wasted. There are
two alternatives. The first would be to pair
up cross-departmentally with Medicare, and possibly Medicaid, to have doctors
or nutritionists identify these individuals that have dietary restrictions and
treat the diets or correct food as a prescription. The cost of the food could then either be
granted as a stipend on the EBT card as supplemental income required to pay for
the additional food or, since Medicare and Medicaid are being involved, a
deductible could be paid.
The second would be to
reclassify the foods that are in the system and change the benefit structure to
encourage purchase of healthier alternatives.
With the help of a nutritionist, help the consumer to make healthy
choices. Certain items could be 50% of
regular cost (beans, rice, fruits & vegetables, skim milk, juice), certain
items could be full cost (regular grocery items), and certain items that are
“unhealthy choices” (sugary sodas) could also be full cost but not tax
exempt. This alternative could help promote
healthier diets and reduce the perception of fraud in the system.
Enforcement
and Penalties
Food stamp fraud is
considered rampant, anecdotally. There
are also stories about people buying lobsters and filet mignon with their EBT
cards, purchasing beer and cigarettes with cash, and then getting into their brand-new
Escalade and driving away. In truth, the
reality of fraud in the SNAP program is much less dramatic.
The period from 2012-2014
saw a record-high level of fraud in the system, with $1.1 billion wasted. But that needs to be put in perspective. The cost of providing nutritional assistance
is $72.1 billion. Therefore, the amount of fraud is about 1.5 percent of all of
the money spent (Willey, et al., 2017).
Continued diligence and investigation by law enforcement should keep
this number low.
Consumer misuse is a
perspective issue. If a customer was to
go into a grocery store and purchase gluten free bread and soy milk, would it
be ok if they used SNAP? What if they
bought Coca Cola and Twinkies? Why
should someone who requires assistance not have the right to purchase what they
please? Does a person who is poor not
have the right to have something they might enjoy, and if not at what point
does it become the business of the government?
SNAP limits purchases of many items including hot foods
ready-to-eat. Some states, including
Maine, have attempted to limit the purchase of junk food and sugary soda but
have been blocked from doing so.
Ultimately, solutions to
the fraud issues come down to the enforcement of existing laws and elimination
of the stigma of the “Ideology of the Dole”.
Adoption of new programs like the Harvest Box will potentially open up
new fraud issues including disposal or resale of unwanted or undesirable food. It is also possible that disreputable
retailers may resell some of this food to make up for the loss of revenue from
SNAP sales.
Two key theories of American
Government
In discussing SNAP, two
key theories underlie the issues:
America as the welfare state and Federalism. Within the Twentieth century, there have been
two periods that solidified America into a welfare state: the 1930s with
Roosevelt’s New Deal, and the 1960s with Johnson’s Great Society. Roosevelt’s first 100 days were marked by the
rapid approval of relief legislation that included the Emergency Conservation
Work Act (which created the Civilian Conservation Corps), the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and the Federal Emergency Recovery Act (FERA) (Trowbridge,
2017). Johnson’s Great Society was focused
on his “War on Poverty.” Important programs during his administration included
the Economic Opportunity Act, the Food Stamp Act, Head Start, and expansions to
Social Security. Both presidents
undertook massive political efforts to protect and enhance the health and
well-being of all Americans. Their
efforts fundamentally shifted the way America views its government.
In creating a welfare
state, significant financial expenditures were required. These were done at both the state and
national level. For example, Roosevelt’s
Federal Emergency Recovery Act provided $3 billion to the states for direct
payments and to create jobs in various public works projects (Trowbridge,
2017). But the Social Security Act of
1935 (and subsequent changes and expansions, including Johnson’s) were
completely Federal programs. Food
Stamps, and later SNAP, were designed more like FERA as they were federally
funded but state run. This is a clear
example of Federalism.
Recommendations
Assessing the Current Political
Climate
The President, the House,
and the Senate are all currently Republican controlled. Historically, there is little expansion in
domestic entitlement programs under these conditions. The current Congress and Administration is
trying to cut entitlement programs. The
controversial Affordable Care Act is their primary target, but along the way
programs like The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) were temporarily
defunded. The government shut down as
part of the budget battle as well. Major
recommendations have been proposed that would alter SNAP have been proposed,
from block grants, to ABAWD, to Harvest Boxes.
The future for those that are battling hunger and food insecurity and
rely on SNAP and other governmental nutrition program is bleak.
However, Congress is
currently drafting the 2018 Farm Bill.
The “Three-point plan for Reform” would need to be addressed now and
while the bill is in subcommittee. Once
the 2018 Farm Bill is cleared through the Nutrition Subcommittee and then the
House Committee on Agriculture, it may be too late to make any effective
change. When the bill reaches the floor
of the House of Representatives, it will most likely pass. It is important that we communicate with our
Congressional Representatives and Senators to recommend this plan as well as
other possible alternatives. Invite them
to local food pantries and soup kitchens so they can see the problem of hunger
in their own communities.
Three Rebuttal Arguments
Abuse
of the System
SNAP has been
characterized by some as an out-of-control entitlement program, with
participants becoming dependent on their monthly benefits. Furthermore, participants get trapped in a
cycle of dependency on government handouts, and the program is ineffective
against reducing hunger.
The participants in SNAP
tend to be food insecure, and the SNAP is not designed to provide the entire
food budget, but a supplement. When
comparing the number of people relying on SNAP against the number of people at
the 130% of poverty line, the trends track identically (Center on Budget,
2017). Poverty is a trap that is hard to
get out of. But people do improve their
situation. The average person receiving
SNAP benefits participates between 37 and 48 months (United States Census Bureau, 2015). Ultimately, as Roy Jarrard said, “We want to
run out of hungry people someday and go out of business.”
Drug
Users
The 2014 Farm Bill did
not include changes to broad-based categorical eligibility or a state option to
drug test SNAP applicants; these options have been included in House
proposals. (Johnson & Monke,
2017). Many people feel that drug
testing should be mandatory for SNAP participants just as it is for welfare
recipients.
Not all states are
testing welfare recipients, and each state that requires testing handles it
differently. The cost involved could be
very high if all 46 million SNAP recipients were required to undergo mandatory
screenings. However, if new applicants
were screened based on certain pre-determined (or random) criteria, costs could
be limited to the workhours required to screen the candidate. Even then, would the potential savings found
from denying a positive drug user offset the cost of the labor and testing?
There is no denying that
drug abuse is an issue. Roy Jarrard
pointed out that a lot of the newer, younger clients at Samaritan Kitchen of
Wilkes are meth addicts. This may be due
to high unemployment and poverty in the Wilkes County, North Carolina area, the
Appalachian region, or it may be indicative of the entire United States.
Disproportionate
use of the system versus Demographics
African-Americans and
illegal immigrants are very often cited as the primary users, and abusers, of
SNAP. But in February of 2015,
Mississippi state legislator, Gene Alday, a Republican, had to issue an apology
for telling a reporter that all the African-Americans in his hometown of Walls,
Mississippi, are unemployed and on food stamps (Le Coz, 2015) .
Undocumented immigrants have never been permitted to receive SNAP
benefits (USDA, 2017).
The USDA reports that
nationally, most of the people who receive benefits from the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program are white.
Roy Jarrard concurred, “Our clients here match the demographics of
[Wilkes] county.”
Is a new law necessary?
From an appropriations
standpoint, the 2018 Farm Bill is necessary.
The problem is, anytime the act is reviewed, the provisions it contains
become politicized. This year’s Farm
Bill is critical to the survival of SNAP in its present form. Block grants, ABAWD, Harvest Boxes, and even
drug testing, are all points up for debate that may change program. There are areas and opportunities within SNAP
that could make it more effective.
Adding the three-point proposal listed in this report into the Farm Act could
help better regulate while expand services and potentially cut costs. Otherwise, a new legislation or regulation is
not necessary.
Why Representative Foxx and Senator
Burr should consider this proposal
“We will launch a special
effort in the chronically distressed areas of Appalachia” (Johnson, 1964). Living in the Wilkes County, NC, in the
Foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, I have seen the generational cycles of
poverty. Representative Foxx is the
Congressional Representative over this district and has seen the crisis of
hunger and food insecurity first hand.
In August of 2016, Ms. Foxx toured Samaritan Kitchen of Wilkes as it
played host for a roundtable on hunger.
During the meeting, Sue and James Watts, local residents, SNAP
recipients, and clients of Samaritans explained about their particular
situation. The Watts have custody of one
grandchild and one great-grandchild.
They are on a fixed income and only receive $74 per month in Food Stamps. After utilities bills, they have a choice
every month of either buying food or medicine.
Thus, they come to Samaritan Kitchen monthly for food (Dunn, 2016). The Watts’s story is not unique in
Appalachia, or the United States.
The Watts’s are examples
of a family that could take advantage of the second part of the three-point
plan. With better benefits that tied in
with their Medicad and Medicare, they might be able to receive additional food
for a low co-pay and they might be able to get lower priced more nutritious
food.
As the Representative for
the district, and the Senator for the state respectively, one would hope that
our local politicians would see the logic and merit to these proposals and work
with the Congress and the Senate to pass common sense legislation that would help
the most impoverished among us.
References
CBPP. (2017). Chart Book: SNAP Helps Struggling
Families Put Food on the Table. Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/chart-book-snap-helps-struggling-families-put-food-on-the-table
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2017). SNAP
tracks changes in share of population that is poor or near-poor. Downloaded
from https://www.cbpp.org/snap-tracks-changes-in-share-of-population-that-is-poor-or-near-poor-6
Conway, K. M. (2016). Press Releases: Chairman Conaway
Unveils SNAP Report: Findings from the “Past, Present, and Future of SNAP”
Hearing Series. House Committee on
Agriculture. Retrieved from https://agriculture.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3599
Dunn, K. (2016). Foxx asked to support current school
food policy. Wilkes Journal Patriot.
Vol. 110, No. 172
Efrenfreund, M. & Ferdman, R. A. (2016). The
controversial reason tens of thousands of people just lost their food stamps.
The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/01/why-tens-of-thousands-of-americas-poorest-people-just-lost-their-food-stamps
Executive Office of the President (2015). Long-term
benefits of the supplemental nutrition assistance program. Retrieved from
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/SNAP_report_final_nonembargo.pdf
Fessler, P. (2015). Both Parties Agree The Food Stamp
Program Needs To Change. But How? The Salt. Retrieved from
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/20/394149979/a-push-to-move-food-stamp-recipients-into-jobs
FoodShare Wisconsin Handbook. (2018, 01 17). Retrieved
from State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services:
http://www.emhandbooks.wisconsin.gov/fsh/policy_files/3/3-16-1.htm
Grieger, L. D., Danziger, S., & Schoeni, R. F.
(2009). Accurately measuring the trend in poverty in the United States using
the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Journal Of Economic & Social
Measurement, 34(2/3), 105-117. doi:10.3233/JEM-2009-0313
Hansan, J.E. (2011). Poor relief in early America.
Retrieved February 25, 2018 from
https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/poor-relief-early-amer/
Hoynes, H. W., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2012). Work
incentives and the Food Stamp Program. Journal Of Public Economics, 96151-162.
doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.08.006
Johnson, L. B. (1964). Annual Message to the Congress
on the State of the Union. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26787
Johnson, R. & Monke, J. (2017) What is the Farm
Bill? Congressional Research Service. RS22131.
Pg. 9 – 10. Retrieved from
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22131.pdf
LaRose, E. (2016). No More Free Lunch. Econ Focus,
20(1), 8.
Le Coz, E. (2015, 2 17). Rep. Alday publicly
apologizes for race-tinged remarks. Retrieved from Clarion Ledger:
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/politicalledger/2015/02/17/alday-apologizes-race-tinged-remarks/23565751/
NCDHHS. (2016). Food and Nutrition Services
FSs245. North Carolina DHHS On-Line
Manuals. Retrieved from https://www2.ncdhhs.gov/info/olm/manuals/dss/ei-30/man/FSs245.htm
Redden, M. (2013). This is why food stamp reliance has
exploded. New Republic. Downloaded from https://newrepublic.com/article/114609/congress-fights-over-food-stamps-dont-worry-about-growth-snap
Rose, N. E. (1989). Work relief in the 1930s and the
origins of the Social Security Act. Social
Service Review, 63(1), 63–91.
Trowbridge, D. J. (2017). A history of the United
States: 1865 to present. Asheville, NC: Soomo Learning. Available from http://www.webtexts.com
United States Census Bureau. (2015, 05 28). Retrieved
from 21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance
Programs Each Month:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html
USDA. (2012).
Building a Healthy America: A Profile of the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program. Retrieved from https://www.fns.usda.gov/
USDA. (2017). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP). Downloaded from https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/
USDA. (2018, 02 02). FY15 through FY18 National View
Summary. Retrieved from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):
https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
USDA Budget. (2016). United States Department of
Agriculture FY 2017 BUDGET SUMMARY. Retrieved from
https://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy17budsum.pdf
USDA – ERS. (2017).
Food Security Status of U.S. Households with Children in 2016. United States Department of Agriculture:
Economic Research Service. Retrieved
from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx
Vilsack, T. (2018, 01 16). What the 2018 farm bill
means for urban, suburban and rural America. Retrieved from The Conversation: http://theconversation.com/what-the-2018-farm-bill-means-for-urban-suburban-and-rural-america-89605
Weill, D. A. (2017, 3 3). President, Congress must
protect programs that keep hunger at bay. Retrieved from The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/322178-president-congress-must-protect-programs-that-keep-hunger-at-bay
Willey, J. & Fetting, N., & Hale, M. (2017).
The Extent of Trafficking in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program:
2012–2014. USDA. Retrieved from
https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/Trafficking2012-2014-Summary.pdf
Wilson, J. Q. (2017). American Government Institutions
and Policies. Cengage Learning. 66
Wimer, C. &. (2013). Trends in Poverty with an
Anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure. New York: CUNY.
Woodhill, L. (2014). Opinion: The War on Poverty
Wasn't A Failure -- It Was A Catastrophe. Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2014/03/19/the-war-on-poverty-wasnt-a-failure-it-was-a-catastrophe/#66a4997c6f49
No comments:
Post a Comment