[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





  HEARING TO EXAMINE THE ROLE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE
        PROGRAM IN RELATION TO OTHER FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

    SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT, AND NUTRITION

                                 OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 24, 2014

                               __________

                           Serial No. 113-18





[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




          Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                         agriculture.house.gov

                               __________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

88-943 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2014 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
  Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800 
         DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, 
                          Washington, DC 20402-0001








                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                   FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia,             COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, 
    Vice Chairman                    Ranking Minority Member
STEVE KING, Iowa                     MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 JIM COSTA, California
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania         KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado            SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          FILEMON VELA, Texas
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York      MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota         PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan               WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
JEFF DENHAM, California              JUAN VARGAS, California
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee       CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DOUG LaMALFA, California             SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               JOHN GARAMENDI, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
TED S. YOHO, Florida
VANCE M. McALLISTER, Louisiana

                                 ______

                      Nicole Scott, Staff Director

                     Kevin J. Kramp, Chief Counsel

                 Tamara Hinton, Communications Director

                Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director

                                 ______

    Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and Nutrition

                       STEVE KING, Iowa, Chairman

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio, Ranking 
BOB GIBBS, OHIO                      Minority Member
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee       MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
VANCE M. McALLISTER, Louisiana       GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, California
                                     ----

                                  (ii)

























                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from Ohio, 
  opening statement..............................................     5
King, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from Iowa, opening 
  statement......................................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Lujan Grisham, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from 
  New Mexico, supplementary information..........................    59

                               Witnesses

Squier, Sidonie, Secretary, New Mexico Human Services Department, 
  Santa Fe, NM; on behalf of Secretary's Innovation Group........     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Doar, Robert, Morgridge Fellow in Poverty Studies, American 
  Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C..........................    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Dean, Stacy, Vice President for Food Assistance Policy, Center on 
  Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, D.C..................    26
    Prepared statement...........................................    28

 
  HEARING TO EXAMINE THE ROLE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE
        PROGRAM IN RELATION TO OTHER FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2014

                  House of Representatives,
     Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and 
                                                 Nutrition,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in 
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Steve King 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives King, Scott, Gibbs, 
McAllister, Lucas (ex officio), Fudge, McGovern, Lujan Grisham, 
and Negrete McLeod.
    Staff present: Josh Mathis, Kevin Kramp, Mary Nowak, Nicole 
Scott, Skylar Sowder, Tamara Hinton, Lisa Shelton, Liz 
Friedlander, and Robert L. Larew.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                       CONGRESS FROM IOWA

    The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on 
Department Operations, Oversight, and Nutrition to examine the 
role of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in 
relation to other Federal assistance programs, will come to 
order. The chair will recognize himself for an opening 
statement.
    First, I want to thank you all for being here today to 
discuss a program that serves a vital role: feeding the hungry. 
Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. I look forward 
to hearing your testimony.
    The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the role of 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--or as we call 
it, SNAP--in relation to other Federal assistance programs such 
as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF 
program, and school meals.
    SNAP is the Federal Government's primary food assistance 
program that currently serves on average 47 million people per 
month. SNAP benefits are fully financed by the Federal 
Government and cost-share between states and the Federal 
Government is in place for administrative costs only.
    No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, we can all 
agree on the importance of SNAP and helping those in need. 
However, with soaring deficits and out-of-control national 
debt, we must be mindful of this grave financial situation. We, 
as Members of Congress, have a responsibility to the American 
people to oversee Federal programs paid for by the taxpayer to 
ensure that they are operating in the most efficient, cost-
effective manner.
    SNAP is a program that has seen considerable growth in 
recent years. Since 2008, the cost of the program has more than 
doubled. And while the recession has certainly played a part in 
the dramatic growth of the program, there have been policies 
put in place by the current Administration to expand 
participation. It is my hope that today we can all learn more 
about these policies and take a look into the growth of SNAP.
    As you all know, my colleagues and I recently finished the 
lengthy process of passing a farm bill. And while I think I can 
speak for the rest of my colleagues in saying that I am pleased 
to have that job behind us--I know I speak for the Chairman 
when I say that--the job of Congress is never finished. We must 
continue to educate each other on Federal programs and exercise 
our responsibility of oversight.
    One particular concern of mine, which we attempted to 
address in the farm bill, is the interaction of SNAP it has 
with the Low Income Heat Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. 
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Act of 1981 provide that low-income 
households receiving any LIHEAP payments will also qualify for 
SNAP, SNAP's Standard Utility Allowance, or SUA. SUA is our 
standardized amount used in place of actual utility costs to 
calculate a household's shelter costs when determining SNAP 
benefits, and which can be used essentially to plus up 
eligibility.
    Unfortunately, in the last several years states have been 
taking advantage of a loophole in how LIHEAP payments interact 
with SNAP benefit calculations. Any amount of LIHEAP assistance 
allowed a household to automatically receive the SNAP SUA. 
Since SNAP benefits are 100 percent Federal dollars, states 
have been using this loophole to bring more SNAP benefits to 
their state, increasing the cost to the Federal Government, 
and, I would add, transferring wealth across the countryside.
    Consequently, there were approximately 16 states and the 
District of Columbia that had been sending payments as low as 
10 to low-income households so they may take advantage of SNAP 
SUA. In the farm bill we addressed this loophole by requiring a 
householder receive a minimum LIHEAP payment of $20 before they 
can receive the SNAP SUA. However, there have been a number of 
states, and I will name them--New York, Connecticut, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Montana, Oregon, Massachusetts--
seven states in all announced that they will continue to, let 
me say, expand and utilize this loophole by sending out $20 
LIHEAP statements payments to continue the heat-and-eat abuse.
    In addition, there are three states considering the same 
actions, at least as has been reported in the press, and that 
would be California, Wisconsin, and Vermont. Also, Speaker 
Boehner has strongly voiced his objection to this kind of 
abuse.
    Continued use of the heat-and-eat loophole threatens the 
amount of savings that will actually be achieved with SNAP 
reform. This Committee is concerned, as I am. I hope throughout 
the hearing we will be able to hear from our panelists about 
this issue.
    Before us today is a panel of three witnesses that have an 
extensive knowledge of SNAP and have seen firsthand how many of 
these programs interact. We are joined by Sidonie Squier, 
Secretary for Human Services Department in New Mexico, as well 
as a member of the Secretary's Innovation Group, or SIG. 
Secretary Squier has experienced working as an Associate 
Commissioner with the Texas Health and Human Services 
Commission, as well as Director of Economic Self-Sufficiency 
and Welfare Reform Administrator of the Florida Department of 
Children and Families.
    We have also Robert Doar, who is currently a Fellow at the 
American Enterprise Institute. Previously, Mr. Doar served as a 
Commissioner of New York City's Human Resources Administration, 
where he administered 12 public assistance programs. Most 
recently, Mr. Doar has been appointed to the National Hunger 
Commission, a bipartisan panel tasked with developing 
recommendations to reduce the need for government nutrition 
programs while maintaining a safety net for the poor.
    And we have Stacy Dean, Vice President for Food Assistance 
Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ms. Dean 
brings a unique perspective, having previously worked in the 
Office of Management and Budget before spending the last 17 
years working extensively with program administration and 
policymakers on nutrition policy.
    We appreciate the time each of you has given us to prepare 
for this hearing. Your testimony will be very helpful for us to 
better understand how SNAP interacts with other Federal 
programs. I thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve King, a Representative in Congress 
                               from Iowa
    Good afternoon.
    Thank you all for being here today to discuss a program that serves 
a vital role: feeding the hungry. Thank you to our witnesses for 
joining us today. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
    The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the role of the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or as we call it, SNAP, in 
relation to other Federal assistance programs, such as the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program and School Meals.
    SNAP is the Federal Government's primary food assistance program 
that currently serves on average 47 million people per month. SNAP 
benefits are fully financed by the Federal Government, and a cost-share 
between states and the Federal Government is in place for 
administrative costs.
    No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, we can all agree on 
the importance of SNAP in helping those in need. However, with soaring 
deficits and an out of control national debt, we must be mindful of 
this grave fiscal situation. We as Members of Congress have a 
responsibility to the American people to oversee Federal programs paid 
for by the taxpayer to ensure that they are operating in the most 
efficient, cost-effective manner.
    SNAP is a program that has seen considerable growth in recent 
years. Since 2008, the cost of the program has more than doubled. While 
the recession has certainly played a part in the dramatic growth of the 
program, there have been policies put in place by the current 
Administration to expand participation. It is my hope that today we can 
all learn more about these policies and take a closer look into the 
growth of SNAP.
    As you all know, my colleagues and I recently finished the lengthy 
process of passing a farm bill. While I think I can speak for the rest 
of my colleagues in saying that I am pleased to have that behind us, 
the job of Congress is never finished. We must continue to educate 
ourselves on Federal programs and exercise our responsibility of 
oversight.
    One particular concern of mine, which we attempted to address in 
the farm bill, is the interaction SNAP has with the Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.
    The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Act of 1981 provide that low-income households receiving any 
LIHEAP payments will also qualify for the SNAP Standard Utility 
Allowance (SUA). SUAs are a standardized amount used in place of actual 
utility costs to calculate a household's shelter costs when determining 
SNAP benefits.
    Unfortunately, in the last several years, states have been taking 
advantage of a loophole in how LIHEAP payments interact with SNAP 
benefit calculation. Any amount of LIHEAP assistance allows a household 
to automatically receive the SNAP SUA. Since SNAP benefits are 100 
percent Federal dollars, states have been using this loophole to bring 
more SNAP benefits to their state, increasing costs to the Federal 
Government.
    Consequently, there were approximately 16 states and the District 
of Columbia that had been sending payments as low as 10 to low-income 
households so they may take advantage of the SNAP SUA.
    In the farm bill, we addressed this loophole by requiring a 
household to receive a minimum LIHEAP payment of $20 before they can 
receive the SNAP SUA. However, there have been a number of states (New 
York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, Pennsylvania 
Gov. Tom Corbett, Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, Montana Gov. Steve 
Bullock, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, and Massachusetts Gov. Deval 
Patrick) announced that they will continue to extort this loophole by 
sending out $20 LIHEAP payments to continue the ``Heat and Eat'' scam. 
In addition, three states are considering the same actions (California 
Gov. Jerry Brown, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and Vermont Gov. Peter 
Shumlin). ``Since the passage of the farm bill, states have found ways 
to cheat, once again, on signing up people for food stamps,'' said 
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). ``And so I would hope that the House would 
act to try to stop this cheating and this fraud from continuing.''
    Continued use of the ``Heat and Eat'' loophole threatens the amount 
of savings that will actually be achieved with SNAP reform. This is 
very concerning to me. I hope throughout the hearing, we will be able 
to hear from our panelists about this issue.
    Before us today is a panel of three witnesses that have an 
extensive knowledge of SNAP and have seen firsthand how many of these 
programs interact.
    We are joined by Sidonie Squier, Secretary for the Human Services 
Department in New Mexico as well as a member of the Secretary's 
Innovation Group. Secretary Squier has experience working as an 
Associate Commissioner with the Texas Health and Human Services 
Commission as well as Director of Economic Self-Sufficiency and Welfare 
Reform Administrator in the Florida Department of Children and 
Families.
    We have Robert Doar, who is currently a Fellow at the American 
Enterprise Institute. Previously Mr. Doar served as Commissioner of New 
York City's Human Resources Administration where he administered 12 
public assistance programs. Most recently, Mr. Doar has been appointed 
to the National Hunger Commission, a bipartisan panel tasked with 
developing recommendations to reduce the need for government nutrition 
programs while maintaining a safety net for the poor.
    Last, we have Stacy Dean, Vice President for Food Assistance Policy 
at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ms. Dean brings a unique 
perspective, having previously worked at the Office of Management and 
Budget before spending the last 17 years working extensively with 
program administrators and policymakers on nutrition policy.
    We appreciate the time each of you has given to prepare for this 
hearing. Your testimony will be very helpful for us to better 
understand how SNAP interacts with other Federal programs. Thank you.
    I would like to recognize my colleague from Ohio, Ranking Member 
Fudge, for any opening remarks she may have.

    The Chairman. And I would like to now recognize my 
colleague from Ohio, Ranking Member Fudge, for any opening 
remarks she may have.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCIA L. FUDGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                       CONGRESS FROM OHIO

    Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say 
I just received notice that they have called votes. And so, 
unfortunately, as we thought might happen, we are going to be 
playing around our vote schedule. But I will start, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you so much for holding this hearing today on 
SNAP.
    And I thank all of our witness for being here.
    It is certainly timely to have our first hearing of this 
Subcommittee on SNAP. I am glad to have this opportunity for us 
to learn more about this program. Earlier this year, the 
President signed into law a bipartisan farm bill where Members 
of both sides of the aisle and across Chambers were able to 
reach a consensus and show the country Congress can indeed work 
together.
    I don't think anyone was fully happy with the compromise 
reached, but on balance it met the needs of the American people 
by providing certainty and sound agricultural policies for our 
consumers, farmers, and ranchers.
    It is important to talk about the farm bill in the context 
of today's hearing, because SNAP was one of the many 
controversial issues we had to work through in order to reach a 
compromise. That is why it is concerning to me when I hear 
reports of some of my colleagues wanting to suggest changes to 
a law that was enacted just a few months ago and is still in 
the process of being implemented.
    We negotiated the farm bill for the last 3 years, and it is 
now time to move on. Going forward, I hope we can better 
educate ourselves on nutrition programs in preparation for the 
next farm bill.
    Statistics show that SNAP is working well. It is a powerful 
antipoverty program that has been efficient, effective, and 
highly responsive to the needs of the people. According to the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, SNAP lifted nearly 4.7 
million Americans out of poverty in 2011, including about 2.1 
million children. Further, SNAP benefits often function as an 
economic stimulus, as every $1 in SNAP benefits generates about 
$1.70 in economic activity.
    Critics of the program like to point out that the number of 
participants has risen in recent times. This is not surprising, 
as growth can largely be attributed to the recession. The 
number of unemployed Americans increased by 94 percent from 
2007 to 2011, and SNAP responded with a 70 percent increase 
over the same period. However, SNAP enrollment growth slowed in 
2012 as the economy began to recover. Also, the Congressional 
Budget Office predicts that SNAP spending will begin to decline 
in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation 
returning to pre-recession levels by 2022.
    These statistics show that SNAP is operating as it should, 
providing a supplemental source of funds to assist families 
with food purchases during tough times. The farm bill created 
pilot work programs with a focus on employment and training. 
Current law requires--I say requires--SNAP participants to 
register for work, accept job offers, and participate in 
workshare or training programs if they are offered. States may 
also require job training.
    Over the last decade the number of low-income working 
households on SNAP has risen dramatically, from two million in 
2000 to about 6.4 million in 2011. This disappointing trend 
reflects both a rise in SNAP participation among eligible low-
income working households, as well as wage erosion at the low 
end of the wage scale. Some workers earn wages so low that even 
full-time, year-round employment is inadequate to keep their 
family out of poverty. In fact, the share of workers with 
below-poverty wages was 28 percent in 2011.
    Further, there is often more to the story than meets the 
eye regarding those SNAP participants who do not work. These 
individuals are not lazy. Rather, in many cases they lack the 
necessary job skills for employment or access to affordable 
child care and transportation.
    I am hopeful the pilot programs created by the farm bill 
will produce innovative approaches to ensuring low-income 
working families can secure employment with adequate wages, so 
they can lift themselves out of poverty and off of SNAP.
    Contrary to what some critics of the program may believe, 
most Americans want a hand up, not a handout. As Members of the 
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and 
Nutrition, it is imperative that we take the time to fully 
understand the intricacies of SNAP.
    As I said at the beginning of my statement, I hope this is 
an issue we can continue to explore as we look ahead to the 
next farm bill. We have invited three experts witnesses to this 
hearing so we can learn more about SNAP and how it interacts 
with other Federal assistance programs. I am looking forward to 
hearing what they have to say.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank Ranking Member Fudge for her opening 
statement and turn to the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. 
Lucas, for any statement he might have.
    Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman, I would waive off a statement in 
recognition of the fact that we have a vote underway on the 
floor.
    The Chairman. I thank the Chairman. And I would point out 
that we are nearly 10 minutes into the vote that has been 
called and roughly 5 or so minutes left to go on to that tally. 
We expect that it is going to be a relatively long series of 
votes, perhaps an hour. But this hearing is in recess, subject 
to the call of the chair. And I advise the Members that it is 
my intention to resume the hearing immediately after the series 
of votes. Thank you.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The chair will call this hearing back to 
order and refresh us on our status: that is that the opening 
statements were concluded, the witnesses were introduced, and 
other Members were asked to include any opening statement into 
the record.
    And at this point, I would like to recognize Ms. Squier for 
her testimony.

   STATEMENT OF SIDONIE SQUIER, SECRETARY, NEW MEXICO HUMAN 
  SERVICES DEPARTMENT, SANTA FE, NM; ON BEHALF OF SECRETARY'S 
                        INNOVATION GROUP

    Ms. Squier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee. I am very appreciative of this opportunity to appear 
as the Secretary of New Mexico's Department of Human Services. 
My Department administers food stamps, TANF, Medicaid, LIHEAP 
and many other human service programs.
    In addition, I am a member of the Secretary's Innovation 
Group.
    The Chairman. Can you pull the microphone a little closer, 
please?
    Ms. Squier. I can. And that is a network of 17 human 
service secretaries reporting to their governors from states 
that represent 34 percent of the U.S. Our members favor 
policies that promote work, self-sufficiency, and healthy 
families.
    Last year, and this year, we were pleased to work with 
Members of this Committee and Representative Steve Southerland 
in the development and passage of the ten state food stamp work 
demonstration to be implemented no later than February of this 
coming year. I am pretty sure New Mexico is going to be 
involved in that.
    The Food Stamp Program, or SNAP, is a food supplement 
program whose intended purpose is to assure individuals with 
the very lowest incomes have enough to eat. But, regrettably, 
this program has strayed from its earlier worthwhile purpose. 
As a way of comparison, in the year of 2001, one out of every 
14 households received food stamps. But in just a little more 
than a decade, one in five American households has now become 
dependent on taxpayer-funded food assistance.
    Is it likely that the proportion of American households 
unable to afford the purchase of sufficient food has increased 
more than threefold during that period? At the same time, the 
number of nonworking, able-bodied households receiving benefits 
has ballooned. If you will look, you will see a chart that 
shows just that. It is very simple so I don't think I need to 
walk you through it.
    The financial costs of distributing free food to such a 
large portion of American families is a substantial burden on 
the average American taxpayer. Currently, 65 million households 
pay net Federal income tax. The rest pay nothing or else they 
receive a payment through the EITC. The amount of annual 
Federal income taxes needed to pay food stamp benefits is an 
astonishing $1,300 per income-taxpaying households. With an 
average food stamp monthly benefit of $275, this means that 
each Federal income-taxpaying household is buying almost 5 
months of groceries for other families each year.
    With food stamp usage now cutting a swath well into the 
middle class, is it fair to ask if we were anticipating that 
average Americans would be buying each other their groceries 
through the Federal Government?
    The recent recession has absolutely played a role in the 
enrollment surge, but it does not account for the size. As the 
chart below again very clearly shows, food stamp caseloads have 
gone up and down during periods of expansion and contraction 
without close correlation to the economic conditions. For 
example, during the period of strong economic growth between 
2001 and 2007, food stamp caseloads increased by more than 50 
percent.
    More significant factors include Federal policy changes, in 
particular the aggressive Federal pressure on states to recruit 
additional beneficiaries, combined with the loosening of 
eligibility rules through a provision of law called categorical 
eligibility. Categorical eligibility permits households to 
bypass the normal income limit of 130 percent of the poverty 
level and the resource limit also of $2,000 to $3,250 imposed 
by SNAP if these households are eligible for TANF or SSI or the 
State General Assistance Program.
    The Chairman. Ms. Squier?
    Ms. Squier. Yes.
    The Chairman. As the clock has ticked down on the 5 
minutes, could I ask you to summarize the balance of your 
testimony, and we will try get the rest of it in questions, 
please?
    Ms. Squier. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Squier. So the thing that I want to bring home the most 
today, I won't even read it, is that because of this provision 
called categorical eligibility, in New Mexico, for instance, 
anybody who touches the TANF program--which can be anybody in 
the state, because the TANF program touches things like 
marriage or counseling or fatherhood that don't have anything 
to do with assets at all. So you could have millions of dollars 
in the bank and still be eligible for food stamps just because 
you are touched by a TANF program, even something as simple as 
a brochure.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Squier follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Sidonie Squier, Secretary, New Mexico Human
Services Department, Santa Fe, NM; on Behalf of Secretary's Innovation 
                                 Group
    Greetings Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

    Thank you for this opportunity. As the Secretary of New Mexico's 
Department of Human Services, our department administers Food Stamps, 
TANF, Medicaid and other human service programs. In addition, I am a 
member of the Secretary's Innovation Group, a network of 17 state human 
services secretaries reporting to their governors from states 
representing 34% of the U.S. Our members actively seek to promote 
policies that advance work, self-sufficiency and healthy families. Last 
year and this year we were pleased to work with Members of this 
Committee and Rep. Steve Southerland toward the development and passage 
in the farm bill of the ten state Food Stamp Work Demonstration to be 
implemented no later than February of this coming year.
    The Food Stamp program, or SNAP, is a food supplement program whose 
intended purpose is to assure individuals with the very lowest incomes 
have enough to eat. But regrettably the program has strayed from this 
earlier worthwhile purpose. As a way of comparison, in the year 2001, 
one out of every fourteen U.S. households received Food Stamps. But in 
just a little more than a decade one in five American households has 
now become dependent on taxpayer funded food assistance. Is it likely 
that the proportion of American households unable to afford the 
purchase of sufficient food has increased more than threefold during 
this period? \1\ At the same time the number of beneficiaries who are 
able bodied and not working has ballooned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Data from Congressional Research Service; Food and Nutrition 
Service; U.S. Census Bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Declining During the Five Year Period After TANF Work-Based 
        Reforms, Non-Working Able Bodied Food Stamp Households Jump


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


        
          Source: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Dept. of 
        Agriculture. Excludes elderly and disabled.

    The financial costs of distributing free food to such a large 
proportion of American families is a substantial burden on the average 
American taxpayer. To place this in perspective, sixty five million 
households pay net Federal income tax (the rest pay nothing or else 
receive a cash payment via the EITC).\2\ The amount of Federal income 
taxes needed to pay Food Stamp benefits for 1 year is an astonishing 
$1,300 on average per income taxpaying household.\3\ The average Food 
Stamp monthly benefit is $275 which means that each Federal income 
taxpaying household is buying almost 5 months of groceries for other 
families each year.\4\ With Food Stamp usage now at one in five 
families and cutting a swath well into the middle class, is it fair to 
ask if we were anticipating that this many Americans would be buying 
each other their groceries through the Federal Government?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The Tax Policy Center estimates that 56.7 percent of households 
paid Federal income taxes in 2013 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/
taxtopics/federal-taxes-households.cfm). There were an average of 115.2 
million American households in the period between 2008-2012 (Census 
Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html). 
Accordingly, approximately 65 million households had net Federal income 
tax liability in 2013.
    \3\ Those with high earnings contribute more than $1,300 per year; 
those with low earnings less. The middle \1/5\ of American households 
pay $12,800 in annual Federal income taxes.
    \4\ Average monthly benefit per household 2013, FNS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The recent recession has played a role in the Food Stamp enrollment 
surge, but it does not account for its size. As the chart below shows, 
Food Stamp caseloads have gone up and down during periods of expansion 
and contraction without close correlation to economic conditions. For 
example during the recent period of strong national economic growth 
between 2001 and 2007 Food Stamp caseloads nevertheless increased by 
more than 50%.\5\ More significant factors accounting for the 
enrollment surge relate to Federal policy changes, in particular the 
aggressive Federal pressure on states to recruit additional 
beneficiaries, combined with the loosening of eligibility rules. One of 
these loosened standards is a provision called ``broad based 
categorical eligibility''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Food and Nutrition Service program participation tables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Stamp Caseload Changes Do Not Directly Correlate to Economic 
        Conditions


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


        
          Source: Food and Nutrition Service; U.S. Dept. of 
        Agriculture; and Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Dept. of 
        Commerce.

    Broad based categorical eligibility allows households to bypass the 
normal income limit of 130% of poverty and resource limit of $2,000 to 
$3,250 imposed by SNAP if these households are eligible for TANF, SSI 
or state general assistance programs.\6\ The original idea was that 
these other programs have their own income and resource tests, more 
stringent than Food Stamps, and therefore calculating a separate 
eligibility determination just for Food Stamps was redundant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ For a detailed description of SNAP eligibility requirements see 
GAO-12-670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However this is no longer the case, because an entire state's 
population can now be eligible for TANF services. With the passage of 
1996 welfare reform law, the nature of the new TANF program broadened 
beyond cash assistance, so that now less than 30% of TANF expenditures 
are made in the form of traditional cash distribution.\7\ Other 
services, for example efforts to reduce out of wedlock pregnancies or 
to promote two parent families, are potentially available to a state's 
entire population, and subsidized child care represents an increasing 
share of benefit dollars.\8\ Under current FNS guidance, even the 
distribution of a TANF brochure or an 800 information number qualifies 
an individual as a ``TANF beneficiary'' and triggers SNAP categorical 
eligibility.\9\ In a paper issued under contract to USDA, researchers 
concluded that elimination of the asset test in a state inflates the 
Food Stamp caseload by an estimated 22%.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ CRS, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Categorical 
Eligibility. In FY 2011 29% of benefits were in the form of cash.
    \8\ Ibid.
    \9\ Under categorical eligibility Federal asset and income tests 
are substituted by state limits if any.
    \10\ Karen Cunnyngham and James Ohls, Simulated Effects of Changes 
to State and Federal Asset Eligibility Policies for the Food Stamp 
Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 
Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 49, October 2008, p. xvi, http://
naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/26691/PDF. GAO estimates are lower; see 
GAO-12-670, Improved Oversight of State Eligibility Expansions Needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2009 FNS sent a directive to its regional administrators (copy 
below) stating that: ``We encourage you to continue promoting 
categorical eligibility as a way to increase SNAP participation and 
reduce state workloads''. In that year and the next, twenty eight new 
states adopted categorical eligibility (including New Mexico under a 
prior Administration), and as of now 43 states have adopted the 
provision.\11\ We think that this FNS policy directive was misguided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ GAO-12-670; and CRS, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program: Categorical Eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Prior to the aggressive attempts by FNS to expand the Food Stamp 
program using broad based categorical eligibility, those with sizeable 
savings or assets were expected to use these resources before asking 
for taxpayer funded food assistance. Similarly, those who were employed 
and earning a lower middle class income or above (130% of poverty or 
more) were expected to buy their own groceries out of their earnings. 
This is no longer necessarily the case.
    During the consideration of the farm bill, the House voted to end 
the categorical eligibility provision, although it was retained in the 
final version. I think, as do the members of the Secretary's Innovation 
Group, that categorical eligibility as currently constituted is not 
prudent, and that the House may wish to reconsider this part of the law 
and FNS practice in its promotion to states.
    Thank you.
Letter from USDA Encouraging States To Increase Food Stamp Caseloads of 
        Households With Income and Assets Over Limit Using Categorical 
        Eligibility


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


        
                                Appendix
Reforming Food Stamps (SNAP)
By The Secretary's Innovation Group
November 2012
    Principal Authors:

  Maura Corrigan, Lead Secretary, Michigan Department of Human Services
  Lillian Koller, Director, South Carolina Department of Social 
    Services
  Suzy Sonnier, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Children and Family 
    Services
  Phyllis Gillmore, Secretary, Kansas Department of Social and 
    Rehabilitation Services

    The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamp 
program, was unaffected by the welfare reforms of the 1990s. Because it 
lacks the work requirements of the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families (TANF) program, it does little to promote self-sufficiency. 
Nor can it properly be called a nutrition program, as there are no 
limitations or incentives in place to promote the purchase of healthy 
food.
    The food stamp program is the second most expensive means-tested 
government assistance program after Medicaid. It is part of a system of 
sixty programs that provide cash, food, housing, and social services to 
low-income Americans, and is one of twelve programs that provide food 
assistance to the poor. As with all the other cash and in-kind 
benefits, food stamps should be analyzed in the context of the much 
larger means-tested system. Total means-tested Federal and state 
spending has more than doubled over the past decade, increasing from 
$431 billion in 2000 to $927 billion in 2011. The food stamp portion of 
this spending has increased more than four times, from $20 billion in 
2000 to $85 billion in 2011.
    Fundamental reform of the food stamp program is needed to control 
costs, ensure that limited resources are used to benefit those truly in 
need, and to refocus the program on promoting employment and self-
sufficiency for able-bodied, working-age recipients. The best way to 
accomplish these goals is by converting the program to a fixed 
allocation, changing eligibility and work requirements, and allowing 
states significant flexibility in implementing those requirements. This 
would enable states to use the strategies that have proven effective 
under the TANF program. In addition, states should have the authority 
and obligation to pursue robust anti-fraud and recoupment programs.
Problems With the Food Stamp Program as Currently Constituted
Lack of Reciprocity
    There is an imbalance in fairness between the taxpayer and many 
recipients of food stamps. The program has left behind its original 
purpose of feeding those who might literally go hungry, and now cuts a 
swath deep into the middle class, subsidizing food purchases among many 
who are clearly able to afford their nutritional needs. The current 
food stamp program asks almost nothing from most non-working, able-
bodied recipients in order to obtain these benefits--not to work, to 
look for work, or to prepare for work. Like the successful welfare 
reform of the 1990s, the program should be restructured so that it is 
primarily a temporary safety net designed to move most recipients to 
self-sufficiency.
Long Term Dependency
    Historically, about \1/2\ of food stamp assistance has gone to 
families with children who have received benefits for more than 8 
years. The current program is failing to promote self-sufficiency. 
Given the sharp increase in caseloads since 2008, there is a danger 
that long-term dependency will be created among a new segment of 
formerly self-sufficient individuals and families. By 2010, one in five 
American households were receiving food stamps, and more than half of 
the 10.5 million households with at least one able-bodied, working-age 
adult had no employed member. Another million to two million households 
included adults who worked less than full time.
Recipients Are No Longer Asked To Look to Their Own Resources First 
        Before Asking for Public Transfers
    Half of all current recipients are eligible for food stamps because 
of the expansion of a loophole that eliminates restrictions on the 
amount of assets an applicant may have and still qualify. In prior 
years, those with temporarily low incomes but large savings or assets 
were expected to use those resources before turning to food stamps. 
Thus, those reaching the end of unemployment benefits but with 
thousands in the bank, and farmers who had a bad year but had millions 
in land and equipment were not eligible for food stamps. This 
appropriate ``asset test'' has effectively been made moot by the 
expansion of a loophole called ``broad based categorical eligibility.'' 
Under this provision, applicants can be deemed ``categorically 
eligible'' as a result of having received any TANF-funded service. This 
could be as little as having received a brochure or an 800 number 
referral for social services. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has 
encouraged the use of ``categorical eligibility'' to increase the asset 
limit or eliminate the asset test for eligibility. This is one reason 
that food stamp enrollment has surged.
Federal Rules Lack Checks Against Improper Payments and Fraud
    The program as federally administered has weakened efforts to 
ensure proper use of funds. Face to face eligibility applications and 
reviews are no longer mandatory, nor is there an emphasis on the 
fastest growing source of fraud--by retailers diverting funds to the 
cash black economy. USDA rules preclude states from using their own 
investigators to track down this enormous illegal diversion of funds. 
One of the byproducts of the introduction of a food stamp work program 
is that it will significantly reduce the amount of funds going to 
otherwise employed recipients who cannot be in two places at once.

    The Secretary's Innovation Group Recommends these fundamental 
reforms:

    1. Food stamps should be converted to a fixed allocation with work 
        requirements, conceptually similar to TANF, but with 
        differences to match its differing population and benefit 
        structure. For cases with an able-bodied adult not working, an 
        expectation of 30 hours of weekly work activity per family 
        should be the norm. The elderly and disabled should be exempt 
        from work requirements, as under current TANF law. Because of 
        the recent explosive growth of the food stamp population, work 
        requirements would be phased in as budgets permit, with TANF 
        funds and employment infrastructure an eligible source for the 
        operation of the state food stamp work program.

    2. Work requirements under the proposed food stamp fixed allocation 
        should be non-waivable, comparable to a proper reading of 
        current TANF law. Any reductions in Federal funding levels for 
        states not operating a food stamp work program as required 
        should be imposed within 24 months after the putative year of 
        non-compliance.

    3. A state's fixed allocation grant amount should be set at the 
        level the state receives at the time the program is converted 
        to a fixed allocation. Shared ongoing savings from reductions 
        in food stamp dependency over time would be allocated as 
        follows:

       For expenditures in subsequent years that exceed the 
            base year, the Fed-
              eral Government and state bear the cost of the increase 
            equally.

       For expenditures in subsequent years that are lower than 
            the base year,
              the Federal Government and state share the savings 
            equally.

       For expenditures below FFY 2008 levels, the state 
            retains 100% of the sav-
              ings.

    4. States will submit an annual plan that must be accepted by the 
        USDA if it meets the following requirements:

       States must incorporate a work program as described in 
            paragraph 1 above.

       States must incorporate robust up-front and ongoing 
            eligibility tests, includ-
              ing an asset test.

       States must incorporate rigorous detection and funds 
            recapture provisions
              for intentional program violations by individual 
            recipients and commercial
              retailers.

       States must assure that food stamp funds are limited for 
            the purchase of
              nutritious food.

    Adopting the Secretary's Innovation Group recommendations will 
activate millions and reserve resources for those most in need.

    A move of the food stamp program away from its current function as 
a straight income transfer program into a temporary program for able 
bodied working-age recipients, while supporting only those most in need 
among the aged and disabled, will re-balance it. As with TANF, states 
will use their fixed annual allocations to maximize the impact of their 
resources dedicated to increasing work levels. It will not be possible 
to engage all current non-working food stamp recipients in work levels 
comparably broad to TANF at the outset, but experience shows that work 
requirements phased in judiciously, first for new applicants, then for 
the rest as budget savings are realized, will have immediate 
constructive impacts on employment and caseloads, and a longer term 
realignment of funds so as to support those most in need.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Squier.
    And the chair now recognizes Mr. Doar for his 5 minute 
testimony.
    Mr. Doar.

         STATEMENT OF ROBERT DOAR, MORGRIDGE FELLOW IN
  POVERTY STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, 
                              D.C.

    Mr. Doar. Thank you, Chairman King, Ranking Member Fudge, 
and other Members of the Committee. I greatly appreciate being 
invited to testify today about the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program. My name is Robert Doar, and I am the 
Morgridge Fellow in Poverty Studies at the American Enterprise 
Institute.
    Prior to joining AEI, I spent 18 years working in 
government social services programs for the State and City of 
New York. For most of those years, I had significant 
responsibilities for the operation of the SNAP program.
    And let me say first, SNAP plays an important role helping 
struggling American families. The assistance it provides 
alleviates material hardship, reduces poverty, and combats 
hunger among poor children, the elderly, and the disabled. All 
Americans can be proud of the enormous amount of relief SNAP 
provides to struggling Americans.
    SNAP also can provide needed financial assistance to low-
income working families to make low wages go further. For a 
single mother with two children working full-time, SNAP can 
provide more than $2,500 annually in assistance to purchase 
food. And when combined with the Federal Earned Income Tax 
Credit and Child Tax Credit, that assistance can make the 
effective compensation of an $8 an hour job the equivalent of 
more than $11 per hour. And if public health insurance or 
Medicaid is also provided and taken into account, then you can 
see the way in which America's generous assistance programs 
make low-wage work pay.
    But SNAP is not perfect. And as someone who strongly 
endorsed the work support aspect of the program while I was 
Commissioner in New York City, I have been disturbed at the 
extent to which in the past 10 years it has become a program 
that both supports work, but when combined with other 
assistance programs appears to also be discouraging work.
    SNAP and some other assistance programs lack a strong work 
requirement. And it appears from data provided by USDA that an 
increasing number of non-elderly, non-disabled adults are not 
are receiving SNAP benefits but are not reporting any earnings 
to the SNAP offices.
    This is troubling for two reasons. First, it raises the 
question, how are these families getting by on only the aid 
provided by food stamps, which was never intended to cover all 
of the needs of a family? And second, shouldn't these 
recipients of government assistance at least be strongly 
encouraged to take part in an effort to get them back to work 
where their incomes can rise more significantly?
    If the goal of expanding SNAP access to the program was to 
make SNAP more of a work support for low-income workers, then 
the data should show more recipients reporting earnings to the 
food stamp offices.
    Another troubling aspect of the most recent past for the 
SNAP program is the extent to which it is no longer as 
responsive to an improving economy and lower unemployment as it 
once was. As the chart in my testimony shows, the longstanding 
pattern of SNAP going up with high unemployment and down with 
low unemployment seems to have been broken. So that now, 5 
years after the end of the recession the expected drop in SNAP 
use has not occurred as it has in the past.
    In the 4 years following the recession of the early 1980s, 
during which unemployment levels rivaled those in the most 
recent recession, the number of food stamp participants 
decreased by over two million and food stamp participants as a 
percentage of the population dropped by over 1.5 percent.
    The past 5 years have not followed this pattern of economic 
recovery. In the 4 years following the end of the downturn in 
2009, the number of SNAP recipients increased by 7.3 million. 
Moreover, the percentage of population receiving food stamps 
increased from 13 percent to 15 percent.
    Were this recent recovery to have behaved similarly to that 
of the 1980s, by 2013 only 11.5 percent of the population would 
have been receiving SNAP benefits, 36 million individuals, as 
opposed to 47.6 million individuals. That is not a small 
difference.
    Now, there are all sorts of forces at work here. It could 
be that the recovery is just too weak, and certainly that is 
part of the story in many parts of the country. And some of the 
increase in recipients is due to households who have some work. 
But there is also a component of this development which is 
caused by the combination of assistance programs which do not 
have a work requirement contributing to a situation where the 
motivation to work at all has been diminished or the motivation 
to work off the books has been increased.
    I am concerned about this, not because I am against helping 
poor Americans buy food for themselves and their children, as 
my record of promoting the Food Stamp Program in New York makes 
clear. I have been a strong supporter of providing aid to 
people in need. But I also want them to escape poverty. And 
assistance programs that do not lead people into employment, 
but instead finance nonwork, will have one sure outcome: They 
will keep people poor.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Doar follows:]

Prepared Statement of Robert Doar, Morgridge Fellow in Poverty Studies, 
      American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \*\ The views expressed in this testimony are those of the author 
alone and do not necessarily represent those of the American Enterprise 
Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does SNAP Support Work? Yes and No
    Chairman King, Ranking Member Fudge, and other Members of the 
Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the 
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and Nutrition of the 
House Committee on Agriculture. I greatly appreciate being invited to 
discuss the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and its 
role, along with other government assistance programs, in both 
alleviating poverty and supporting work for low-income Americans.
    My name is Robert Doar and I am the Morgridge Fellow in Poverty 
Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Prior to joining 
AEI, I spent eighteen years working in government social services 
programs for the State and City of New York. From 2004 to 2006, I was 
Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability 
Assistance where I was responsible for the oversight of SNAP as well as 
other public assistance programs in New York State. For the 7 years 
directly before I joined AEI, I was the Commissioner of the New York 
City Human Resources Administration and had the day to day operational 
responsibility of determining eligibility for SNAP. My extensive 
experience with the management of SNAP has given me considerable 
insight into how the program is actually working for American 
families--insight which I would like to now share.
    My testimony will address the following issues:

    I. The importance of SNAP. SNAP provides needed resources to low 
        income Americans. SNAP benefits alleviate material hardship, 
        reduce poverty and support employment.

    II. The rapid growth of SNAP. The program's growth during the past 
        14 years has been both dramatic and unprecedented and can be 
        attributed to both a weak economy and significant programmatic 
        changes.

    III. The low responsiveness of SNAP to recent economic 
        improvements. Today, 5 years after the official end of the 
        recession, the number of SNAP recipients has not fallen at the 
        rate that would normally be expected in a post-recession 
        period. In fact, SNAP's responsiveness to reduced unemployment 
        seems to have decreased significantly since 1980.

    IV. Work and SNAP. While many SNAP recipients are working and using 
        SNAP benefits as an important work support, a remarkably high 
        number of nonelderly, nondisabled SNAP recipients are not 
        reporting earnings from work and are not facing any effective 
        work requirement associated with SNAP.

    V. The role of SNAP in the context of other public assistance 
        programs. SNAP does not operate alone in providing assistance 
        to low income Americans. For those SNAP recipients who are also 
        receiving TANF funded cash assistance, SNAP works in 
        conjunction with a program which has a strong emphasis on work 
        requirements in return for assistance. For those who are 
        disabled or elderly, SNAP provides needed additional assistance 
        to very vulnerable individuals and families. But for the very 
        many SNAP individuals and households who are not on TANF and 
        who are not disabled or elderly, SNAP can, when combined with 
        other forms of government provided assistance, encourage a 
        household to place less emphasis on the importance of full-time 
        employment than it should.

    VI. Asset tests and the LIHEAP loophole. The widespread ending of 
        an asset test for SNAP is a mistake. Those decisions should be 
        revisited, with the goal of preventing people with significant 
        assets from receiving SNAP benefits. In addition, while 
        Congress attempted to close the LIHEAP loophole, the extent to 
        which states have been able to continue to falsely characterize 
        public housing residents as being in need of LIHEAP assistance 
        shows that, for some, programs such as SNAP are not about 
        encouraging work--and thereby reducing poverty--but about 
        drawing down as much Federal aid as possible.
SNAP Growth Through the Recession
    SNAP has experienced unprecedented growth in the 2000s. Today the 
program serves 46.2 million people--double the number of participants 
from just 10 years ago.\1\ This tremendous program expansion can be 
attributed to four main factors: the negative economic consequences of 
the 2008-09 recession and a disappointingly weak recovery; changes in 
program rules which have significantly eased program entry; large 
growth in the number of recipients who are working; and promotional 
efforts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and others, which 
have encouraged use of the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and 
Costs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. 
Accessed 14 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/
SNAPsummary.pdf, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/29SNAP
currPP.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Recession
    Lingering effects of the recent recession have only been 
exacerbated by the anemic recovery of the labor force. The unemployment 
rate remains higher than in pre-recession years and as of 2012, 11.8 
percent of all families in the United States were living in 
poverty.\2\-\3\ Even those who are working are still 
struggling to make ends meet as wages have not increased and part time 
work has grown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 
1943 to date, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Accessed 3 July 2014, http://
www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.pdf.
    \3\ Families in Poverty by Type of Family: 2011 and 2012, U.S. 
Census Bureau. Accessed 3 July 2014, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/
poverty/data/incpovhlth/2012/table4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the wake of this increased need for supplemental aid for 
families and individuals, programs like SNAP have grown dramatically 
(see Figures 1 & 2). From 2000 to 2013 the number of SNAP participants 
increased from fewer than 17.2 million to more than 47.6 million 
individuals.\4\ In that same time period, total benefits paid to 
participants increased fivefold.\5\ SNAP has supported families in and 
near poverty through difficult economic times by alleviating their 
material hardship and reducing their financial need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program Participation and 
Costs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. 
Accessed 3 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/
SNAPsummary.pdf.
    \5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: SNAP Participants & the Poverty Rate, 2000-2012


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, USDA.
Figure 2: SNAP Participants & the Unemployment Rate, 2000-2012


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDA.
II. Program Changes
    At the same time, SNAP rules and requirements have been modified to 
enhance program access. Altering asset and work requirements as well as 
recertification timelines has contributed significantly to the increase 
in program participation. With support from USDA, states have also 
reduced the requirement for face to face eligibility interviews and 
promoted the use of telephone interviews and online applications. All 
of these changes make the eligibility rules of SNAP much different than 
those for TANF.
    The participation rate of eligible people in the U.S. increased 
from 55.7 percent in 2000 to 79 percent in 2011.\6\-\7\ Many 
states had even higher participation rates: Michigan and the District 
of Columbia both showed 99 percent participation, and Maine, Oregon, 
and Washington all achieved 100 percent program participation among all 
eligible individuals.\8\ Another similar and more recent measure of 
participation, the Program Access Index (PAI), the proportion of people 
below 125 percent of the poverty line who receive SNAP benefits, shows 
a continuing increase in access from 69 percent in 2010 to 74 percent 
in 2012.\9\-\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ A User's Guide to Measures of Food Stamp Program Participation 
Rates, Table 1, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition 
Service. Accessed 3 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/
files/ParticipationUsersGuide.pdf.
    \7\ Reaching Those in Need: State supplemental nutrition assistance 
program participation rates in 2011, U.S. Department of Agriculture 
Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 3 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Reaching2011.pdf.
    \8\ Ibid.
    \9\ Calculating the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP) Program Access Index: A Step-by-Step Guide for 2010, United 
States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Office of 
Policy Support. Accessed 15 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/PAI2010.pdf.
    \10\ Calculating the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP) Program Access Index: A Step-by-Step Guide for 2012, United 
States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Office of 
Policy Support. Accessed 15 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/PAI2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Growth of the Working Population
    Partly as a result of changes intended to make the program easier 
to navigate for low wage workers, the number of working SNAP recipients 
has increased by 4.6 million since 2000.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ USDA Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program Households, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition 
Service. Accessed 18 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/
files/2000Characteristics.pdf, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/
files/2012Characteristics.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This could be seen as a positive development that shows that the 
program has evolved to be a source of supplemental income for working 
families. In New York City for example, we encouraged the use of the 
program for low wage workers in order to help them make their earnings 
go farther. During my time as welfare commissioner of New York City, 
the number of SNAP recipients living in households which did not 
receive benefits from TANF or SSI grew by 500,000. This remarkable 
growth was used to demonstrate the extent to which the program had 
become a significant work support.
IV. Promotion by the USDA
    In an effort to increase accessibility to the program and remove 
any existing social stigmas associated with program participation, the 
USDA has revitalized the program's image. Changes have included 
changing the program name and promoting it as a positive resource 
rather than an indicator of need. The USDA and others have also 
expanded outreach efforts. This encouragement of the use of SNAP has 
contributed to increased participation.
    All of these forces have culminated in a massive increase in aid 
being distributed through SNAP. From 2000 to 2013, the amount of total 
benefits distributed to program participants jumped from less than $15 
billion to over $76 billion.\12\ Over that same time period the average 
benefits paid out to each person nearly doubled from $72.62 to 
$133.07.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program Participation and 
Costs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. 
Accessed 3 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/
SNAPsummary.pdf.
    \13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In all, SNAP has been an extremely responsive tool to combat the 
economic downturn and has provided substantial assistance to low income 
Americans. SNAP enables low wages to go farther and has played an 
integral role in the fight to reduce poverty. Studies such as one by 
Tiehan, Jolliffe & Smeeding for the Institute for Research on Poverty 
have shown that SNAP decreases poverty by as much as 16 percent, and 
cuts extreme poverty in half, making it an extremely effective 
antipoverty program.\14\ In 2011 alone SNAP helped 3.7 million people 
out of poverty, 3.4 million out of deep poverty, and lowered the 
poverty rate by eight percentage points.\15\ The positive effect of 
SNAP can also be seen in studies of poverty using consumption measures 
where the extent and severity of poverty is shown to be significantly 
lower than measures which focus on income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Tiehen, Laura; Jolliffe, Dean; Smeeding, Timothy. The Effect 
of SNAP on Poverty, Institute for Research on Poverty, Working Paper 
No. 1415-13. 28 October 2013.
    \15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Given the enormous growth of SNAP as a response to the recession, 
two important questions emerge: First, why, now that the economy has 
begun to strengthen, is the number of recipients not dropping faster? 
Second, have efforts to increase SNAP's reach and impact allowed for 
too much non-work among able recipients?
Slow Decline in Participation Post-Recession
    Today, 5 years after the end of the recession, the number of SNAP 
participants and the amount of benefits paid are just beginning to 
decline. From April 2013 to April 2014 there was a 2.7% decrease in 
participants and an 8.4% drop in total benefits paid.\16\ Given the 
substantial increase in the number of recipients of SNAP, these 
decreases are remarkably modest: the number of participants increased 
by as much as seven million a year immediately following the recession, 
while the past year has shown a decrease of only 1.3 
million.\17\-\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap.
    \17\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and 
Costs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. 
Accessed 14 July 2014, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/
SNAPsummary.pdf.
    \18\ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fact, looking at the years following this most recent recession 
in comparison to the years following previous downturns, it is apparent 
that SNAP is responding differently than it has in the past (see Figure 
3). In the 4 years following the recession of the early 1980s, during 
which unemployment levels rivaled those of the most recent recession, 
the number of food stamp participants decreased by over two million and 
food stamps participants as a percentage of the population dropped by 
over 1.5 percent from the beginning of the recession.\19\ Similarly, in 
the 4 years following the recession of the early 1990's, the number of 
participants remained fairly constant after adjusting for population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ AEI calculations using USDA, BLS, NBER, and Census Bureau 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The past 5 years have not followed this pattern of economic 
recovery. In the 4 years following the end of the downturn in 2009, the 
number of SNAP recipients increased by 7.3 million.\20\ Moreover, the 
percentage of the population receiving food stamps increased from 13 
percent to 15 percent. To give perspective on this number, we can 
compare the recent recovery with the recovery after the recession of 
the 1980's, whose duration and unemployment levels are most comparable. 
Adjusting for population, in the 4 years following the 1981-82 
recession, there was a 12.5 percent decline in food stamp recipients. 
In the 4 years following the 2007-09 recession, SNAP recipients 
increased by 15.6 percent. Were this recent recovery to have behaved 
similarly to that of the 1980's, by 2013 only 11.5 percent of the 
population would have been receiving SNAP benefits: 36 million 
individuals as opposed to 47.6 million.\21\ That is not a small 
difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ AEI calculations using USDA, BLS, NBER, and Census Bureau 
data.
    \21\ AEI calculations using USDA, BLS, NBER, and Census Bureau 
data. To obtain the 35 million individuals in 2013 the percent change 
in population on SNAP from 1983-86 was applied to the portion of the 
population on SNAP in 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3: SNAP Trends Through Recessions, 1969-2013


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          Sources: USDA, BLS, NBER, Census Bureau.
Work Requirements Among Able Adults
    While the SNAP working population has grown, there are many 
individuals receiving SNAP benefits who are not working or at least not 
reporting earnings to SNAP eligibility offices. Under recent program 
changes, the process of applying has become less rigorous, and while 
this has expanded the program to meet the needs of many Americans, it 
has also opened the door for many non-workers and off-the-book workers, 
to receive SNAP benefits without facing any effort to help them get 
into regular employment.
    From 2008 to 2012 the number of nonelderly, nondisabled SNAP 
recipients who were not reporting earnings ballooned from five million 
(18 percent of SNAP recipients) to over 10.6 million (23 
percent).\22\-\23\ As of 2012, almost half of these 
individuals were not even participating in the labor force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ USDA Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program Households: Fiscal Year 2008, U.S. Department of Agriculture 
Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2008Characteristics.pdf.
    \23\ USDA Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012, U.S. Department of Agriculture 
Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 4: Nonelderly Adult Participants by Work Status, 2008-2012 \24\


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          AEI Calculations using USDA data for years 2008-2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ The number of nondisabled, nonelderly and nonworking was 
derived from the ``Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program Households'' for Fiscal Years 2008 to 2012. A summation of 
nonelderly adults not in the labor force and not looking for work, 
minus those exempt for disability, and nonelderly unemployed adults 
looking for work yields the total number of presumably able-bodied 
nonelderly persons who are not working. This number is an estimate, as 
it does not account for the possibility that some of these recipients 
may be working off-the-books, be otherwise incapable of work, or have 
other motivations for non-work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 5: Employment Status Among Nonelderly Adult SNAP Participants, 
        2012


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


        
          Source: USDA Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition 
        Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012.
   Figure 6: SNAP Participant Work    Figure 7: SNAP Participants Work
            Trends, 1998              Trends, 2002


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                      
   Figure 8: SNAP Participant Work    Figure 9: SNAP Participants Work
            Trends, 2008              Trends, 2012


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                      
    This number, which includes some recipients who are also on TANF, 
and others who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits, has 
doubled through the recession and this growth far exceeds that of 
working SNAP participants. While there may be some explanation for some 
of this non-work status (individuals in the process of applying for 
disability status for instance, or going through a short spell of 
unemployment), the growth in this number is troubling. SNAP benefits 
are not intended to satisfy a household's needs beyond supplementing an 
existing income to provide for food. Helping these individuals gain 
employment would greatly strengthen the economic situation of their 
households.
    Another group over which we need to be concerned is Able-Bodied 
Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs). In 2012, only 1.5 million out of 
5.5 million households not containing children, elderly or disabled 
individuals reported earned income.\25\ Additionally, out of 
approximately 4.4 million childless households containing at least one 
nondisabled adult, only 1.2 million reported earned income.\26\ Only a 
little more than a quarter of these able and childless adults is 
working.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ USDA Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012, Table A.16. U.S. Department of 
Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Accessed 14 July 2014, http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf.
    \26\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To achieve the goal of labor market integration for all of these 
able bodied adult recipients, we must examine what we can do to 
facilitate, motivate, and require work. My experience at both the state 
and local levels has led me to believe that the best way to move 
individuals receiving public assistance into employment is to send a 
strong message that work is both expected and required for those who 
are able.
    One of the most significant effects following the implementation 
the welfare reform legislation was the large number of AFDC recipients 
who declined to pursue cash assistance when they were asked to 
participate in regular activities associated with receiving assistance. 
The clear conclusion which I and many others reached was that these 
former AFDC recipients were already working in some capacity but not in 
on-the-books employment. Further study on this issue is needed but it 
is clear to me that at least some of the apparent non-work of SNAP 
recipients can be attributed to recipients who are engaged in the off-
the-books economy and are also able to apply for and receive SNAP 
benefits.
SNAP Does Not Operate Alone
    SNAP is not the only program that acts as a support for working 
families. The Earned Income Tax Credit, public health insurance, child 
care assistance, child support collections and other programs all can--
when working correctly--help to make work more attractive than welfare 
for low wage workers living in households with children. As the charts 
below show, by using just three Federal programs, EITC, SNAP and 
Medicaid, a single mother or father can ``gross up'' an $8 an hour job. 
A single parent working for $8 an hour but working only half-time can 
also make her wages go significantly farther by applying for and 
receiving aid.
Estimated Value of Wages and Select Federal Benefits for a Low-Income 
        Earner With Two Children Working Full Time at $8/hr = $30,204


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


        
Estimated Value of Wages and Select Federal Benefits for a Single Mom 
        With One Child Working Half-Time at $8/hr = $19,251


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


        
    However, while these ``supports for working people'' clearly reward 
work, they may also replace work, especially when multiple supports are 
combined with each other. At the very least, this combination of 
assistance can reduce the incentive for someone to increase their 
hours, or take regular on-the-book employment. My experience in New 
York--where many, many residents asked for and received SNAP and 
Medicaid, but declined TANF (and its accompanying work requirements and 
employment assistance), and yet still reported to our offices very low 
earnings, led me to believe that the issue of well-intentioned ``work 
supports'' potentially reducing on-the-book employment needs to be 
studied.
Asset Testing and the LIHEAP Loophole
    The use of broad-based categorical eligibility to allow SNAP 
programs to waive the asset test has been a mistake. That is not to say 
that we should return to the old and insufficient asset test. A limit 
of $10,000 in assets (not including primary residence and a car) seems 
to me to be appropriate. I say this for two reasons: first, by refusing 
to allow SNAP offices to investigate assets, applicants who have assets 
are able to avoid declaring them. This encourages people who do not 
want to lie on a government form to take advantage of the program and 
apply for assistance they do not really need. Second, a central 
principle of government assistance for the poor should be that 
applicants and recipients should be encouraged to first use their own 
resources and efforts to help themselves and their families before they 
turn to government. Ending the asset test has encouraged abuse, and 
discouraged personal responsibility.
    Residents of public housing often do not have utility expenses 
billed directly to them. Those costs are supported by the rent they pay 
and the subsidy they receive to keep their rent low. These same 
residents may also be in need of SNAP assistance, which they should be 
able to receive. However, to artificially increase the amount of their 
SNAP benefit by suggesting that they have burdensome utility expenses 
when, in reality, they do not, is a gimmick that is unfair to both the 
SNAP program and the thousands of LIHEAP recipients who do have utility 
expenses which are only partially offset by LIHEAP assistance. By 
continuing to exploit the LIHEAP loophole, states are showing that they 
are more interested in drawing down maximum federal dollars than they 
are in running programs that promote work and provide properly tailored 
assistance to people in need.
Conclusion
    Our nation's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provides 
important assistance to needy Americans. SNAP alleviates material 
hardship, reduces poverty, helps the elderly and disabled, and provides 
needed food to children in low income families. By supplementing low 
wages, SNAP can encourage and sustain work while discouraging the use 
of cash welfare.
    Despite these positive aspects of SNAP, my experience with the 
program during the past 10 years, especially during the period 
following the 2008-09 recession, leads me to believe that some efforts 
to promote the use of SNAP may have reduced the work support aspect of 
the program. By itself, SNAP benefits may not be enough to reduce the 
incentive for a recipient to go to work, or to move from part-time to 
full-time regular employment, but when combined with unreported 
earnings or other assistance programs--perhaps most notably 
unemployment insurance benefits--the program does appear to allow a 
significant number of adult recipients to remain out of work longer 
than they might otherwise. Without some effort to require these SNAP 
recipients to participate in employment programs such as those offered 
under TANF, I fear that the number of non-working, nonelderly, 
nondisabled SNAP recipients will remain high. This will contribute to 
slower economic growth--but more important, it will keep these families 
poor.

    The Chairman. Thank you Mr. Doar.
    I now recognize Ms. Dean for her 5 minute testimony.
    Ms. Dean.

        STATEMENT OF STACY DEAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR FOOD
         ASSISTANCE POLICY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY
                  PRIORITIES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Ms. Dean. Chairman King, Ranking Member Fudge, thank you 
for the opportunity to testify today. I am Stacy Dean, the Vice 
President for Food Assistance Policy at the Center on Budget 
and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan policy institute.
    I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you about 
SNAP today and SNAP's relationship to other programs. SNAP is 
designed to provide a basic nutrition benefit to low-income 
families, seniors, and people with disabilities who cannot 
afford an adequate diet.
    Today, the program helps feed more than 46 million people, 
including 21 million children and nine million children living 
with family income below \1/2\ the poverty line. While the 
program is not perfect, as Mr. Doar points out, it does an 
admirable job of meeting its core purpose of providing food 
assistance to needy households.
    Moreover, recent research indicates SNAP's benefits aren't 
limited to providing relief from just poverty and hunger. SNAP 
also improves the long-term outcomes and self-sufficiency for 
individuals who received its benefits as children. For example, 
one of the most striking findings is that participation in SNAP 
as a young child improved high school completion rates by 18 
percent. So although Ranking Member Fudge stole some of my 
thunder, I would like to highlight some of the program's key 
strengths.
    SNAP is highly responsive to need. It is an entitlement, 
meaning that anyone who qualifies can receive its benefits. 
This is the program's most powerful feature. It enables SNAP to 
respond quickly and effectively during times of economic 
distress. Enrollment does expand when the economy weakens and 
it contracts when the economy recovers.
    After growing substantially in response to the great 
recession and the subsequent slow recovery, SNAP costs have 
started falling and are expected to fall further. In April 
2014, which represents the most recent data that we have, 1.5 
million fewer people were on the program than when 
participation peaked in 2012. And CBO projects that by 2019 
SNAP will return to its pre-recession spending levels as a 
share of the economy.
    Second, SNAP growth was not a result of waste or fraud. 
SNAP has an impressive track record with respect to program 
integrity. The share of SNAP payments issued to ineligible 
households in 2013 was less than one percent. And moreover, 
SNAP's efforts to measure and cut errors really set the 
standard across government programs.
    SNAP is a powerful antipoverty program. While benefits are 
modest, just $1.40 per person, per meal, they do have a big 
impact. SNAP lifted about nearly five million Americans above 
the poverty line in 2012, including 2.2 million children.
    And SNAP is an important work support. The number of low-
income working households on SNAP has risen dramatically. While 
only about 28 percent of families with an able-bodied adult had 
earnings in 1990, 55 percent of those families were working in 
2012. Most SNAP recipients who can work do, turning to SNAP 
temporarily when they lose employment. So when you look at 
before and after their participation in SNAP, more than 80 
percent of households with at least one working-age nondisabled 
adult work in the year prior to or after receiving SNAP.
    So let me quickly pivot to SNAP's relationship to other 
programs. Of course people cannot survive on SNAP benefits 
alone. Many people whose circumstances qualify them for SNAP 
also meet other programs eligibility criteria. Working families 
with children who participate in SNAP may also, for example, 
receive child care subsidies, and the majority of SNAP 
recipients qualify for health coverage either under Medicaid or 
Medicare. And as such, State Administrators, like Mr. Doar and 
Secretary Squier, work to coordinate SNAP's delivery and 
program rules with other programs when appropriate.
    There are many cross-program coordination issues, so let me 
just highlight one for you. Other programs can and do rely upon 
SNAP's rigorous assessment of household financial 
circumstances. This can result in more efficient application 
and enrollment systems, as well as be the means to connect 
people to benefits that can help them beyond SNAP.
    Moreover, because SNAP's assessment is so robust, its 
information can actually increase the quality and program 
integrity in other programs. For example, Medicaid can rely 
upon verified information in the SNAP program, rather than 
reassessing and reworking the same information.
    The School Meals Program adopts SNAP's determination of 
eligibility for children to qualify them for the Free School 
Meals Programs, rather than asking schools to replicate that 
effort.
    So to be sure, few state officials want to replicate SNAP's 
very high and prescriptive standards for eligibility and 
administration. Many however, are willing to use SNAP's 
determinations to create efficiencies for other programs.
    Of course, we should all work to find ways to improve SNAP, 
and I think today's discussion will be an important 
contribution to that effort. But I really encourage the 
Committee to reject proposals that would weaken the program's 
ability to provide food assistance or to experiment with ideas 
that risk compromising the program's proven success.
    So thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Dean follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Stacy Dean, Vice President for Food Assistance 
    Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, D.C.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Stacy Dean, 
Vice President for Food Assistance Policy at the Center on Budget and 
Policy Priorities, an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan policy 
institute located here in Washington. The Center conducts research and 
analysis on a range of Federal and state policy issues affecting low- 
and moderate-income families. The Center's food assistance work focuses 
on improving the effectiveness of the major Federal nutrition programs, 
including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). I also 
lead our work on program integration and efforts to facilitate and 
streamline low-income people's enrollment into the package of benefits 
for which they are eligible. This includes directing technical 
assistance to state officials through the Work Support Strategies 
Initiative run by the Urban Institute and the Center for Law and Social 
Policy. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities receives no 
government funding.
    My testimony today focuses on SNAP's relationship to other Federal 
programs.\1\ SNAP is highly responsive to other Federal assistance 
programs in the way that it assesses eligibility and benefit levels. 
This ensures that its benefits are targeted to those who struggle the 
most to afford a nutritious diet. And, other programs are keenly aware 
of SNAP's ability to scrutinize the financial circumstances of low-
income households. As a result, numerous programs rely upon SNAP's 
determinations of eligibility and assessment of individual 
circumstances when setting their own eligibility rules and procedures. 
Moreover, SNAP is a significant program with a broad reach and high and 
proscribed standards for how benefits must be processed. As a result, 
SNAP is a highly influential program as states seek to coordinate the 
delivery of health and human services across many programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ My testimony draws upon the work of my colleagues at the Center 
on Budget and Policy Priorities, particularly Dorothy Rosenbaum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My testimony will focus on four areas:

   SNAP is a very effective program that alleviates poverty and 
        hunger as well as improves its participants' long-term 
        outcomes.

   States and USDA operate SNAP very efficiently and with a 
        high degree of accuracy in addition to the program's rigorous 
        eligibility assessment of participants.

   SNAP's benefit calculation is very sensitive to households' 
        receipt of other assistance programs, ensuring that benefits 
        are targeted to those that struggle the most to afford an 
        adequate diet.

   Other programs benefit from SNAP's robust and high-quality 
        eligibility determination process. SNAP participation and the 
        verified data used in a SNAP eligibility determination can be 
        and is used by other programs to streamline their own 
        eligibility and enrollment processes.
SNAP Plays a Critical Role in Our Country
    Before turning to today's hearing topic of the role SNAP plays in 
other Federal assistance programs, I think it is important to review 
some of SNAP's most critical features. As of April of this year, SNAP 
was helping more than 46 million low-income Americans to afford a 
nutritionally adequate diet by providing them with benefits via a debit 
card that can be used only to purchase food. On average, SNAP 
recipients receive about $1.40 per person per meal in food benefits. 
One in seven Americans is participating in SNAP--a figure that speaks 
both to the extensive need across our country and to SNAP's important 
role in addressing it.
    Policymakers created SNAP to help low-income families and 
individuals purchase an adequate diet. It does an admirable job of 
providing poor households with basic nutritional support and has 
largely eliminated severe hunger and malnutrition in the United States.
    When the program was first established, hunger and malnutrition 
were much more serious problems in this country than they are today. A 
team of Field Foundation-sponsored doctors who examined hunger and 
malnutrition among poor children in the South, Appalachia, and other 
very poor areas in 1967 (before the Food Stamp Program was widespread 
in these areas) and again in the late 1970s (after the program had been 
instituted nationwide) found marked reductions over this 10 year period 
in serious nutrition-related problems among children. The doctors 
attributed a significant part of this reduction to the Food Stamp 
Program (as the program was then named). Findings such as this led 
then-Senator Robert Dole to describe the Food Stamp Program as the most 
important advance in the nation's social programs since the creation of 
Social Security.
    Consistent with its original purpose, SNAP continues to provide a 
basic nutrition benefit to low-income families, elderly, and people 
with disabilities who cannot afford an adequate diet. In some ways, 
particularly in its administration, today's program is stronger than at 
any previous point. By taking advantage of modern technology and 
business practices, SNAP has become substantially more efficient, 
accurate, and effective. While many low-income Americans continue to 
struggle, this would be a very different country without SNAP.
SNAP Protects Families From Hardship and Hunger
    SNAP benefits are an entitlement, which means that anyone who 
qualifies under the program's rules can receive benefits. This is the 
program's most powerful feature; it enables SNAP to respond quickly and 
effectively to support low-income families and communities during times 
of economic downturn and increased need. Enrollment expands when the 
economy weakens and contracts when the economy recovers.
Figure 1
SNAP Caseloads Closely Track Changes in Number of Poor and Near-Poor


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          * Poverty numbers are annual estimates and not yet available 
        after 2012. Spikes in SNAP participants are from disaster 
        benefits (i.e., after hurricanes).
          Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture (SNAP Program 
        Participants); U.S. Census Bureau (annual estimates of 
        individuals below 130% of poverty).

    As a result, SNAP can respond immediately to help families and to 
bridge temporary periods of unemployment or a family crisis. If a 
parent loses her job, SNAP can help her feed her children until she is 
able to improve her circumstances. A U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) study of SNAP participation over the mid-2000s found that more 
than half of all new entrants to SNAP participated for less than 1 year 
and then left the program when their immediate need passed.
    SNAP's ability to serve as an automatic responder is also important 
when natural disasters strike. States can provide emergency SNAP within 
a matter of days to help disaster victims purchase food. After the 2005 
hurricanes, for example, SNAP provided more than two million households 
with almost $1 billion in temporary food assistance. In 2013, SNAP 
helped households affected by Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy, tornadoes in 
Oklahoma, and flooding in Colorado, and in 2014 it has helped 
households in the Southeast affected by severe storms.
    SNAP's caseloads grew in recent years primarily because more 
households qualified for SNAP because of the recession, and because 
more eligible households applied for help. The Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO) has confirmed that ``the primary reason for the increase 
in the number of participants was the deep reces-
sion . . . and subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant 
legislative expansions of eligibility.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Congressional Budget Office, ``The Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program,'' April 2012, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/
files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While this increase in participation and spending was substantial, 
SNAP participation and spending have begun to decline as the economic 
recovery has begun to reach low-income SNAP participants. In 2013, SNAP 
growth began to stabilize, and by April 2014, the number of SNAP 
participants had fallen by 1.5 million since the peak of SNAP 
participation in December 2012. SNAP spending is also falling. In 
November 2013, a temporary benefit boost that was part of the 2009 
Recovery Act ended, and as a result, SNAP spending on benefits will 
fall by about $5 billion in Fiscal Year 2014. Over the first 9 months 
of Fiscal Year 2014 (October 2013 through June 2014), SNAP outlays were 
seven percent lower than the same period of Fiscal Year 2013 on a 
nominal basis. CBO predicts that this trend will continue, and that 
SNAP spending as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will fall to 
its 1995 levels by 2019.
SNAP Lessens the Extent and Severity of Poverty and Unemployment
Figure 2
Two-Fifths of SNAP Households Are Below Half the Poverty Line


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          Source: USDA Household Characteristics Data, FY 2011.

    SNAP targets benefits on those most in need and least able to 
afford an adequate diet. Its benefit formula considers a household's 
income level as well as its essential expenses, such as rent, medicine, 
and child care. Although a family's total income is the most important 
factor affecting its ability to purchase food, it is not the only 
factor. For example, a family spending \2/3\ of its income on rent and 
utilities will have less money to buy food than a family that has the 
same income but lives in public or subsidized housing.
    While the targeting of benefits adds some complexity to the 
program, it helps ensure that SNAP provides the most assistance to the 
poorest families with the greatest needs.
    These features make SNAP a powerful tool in fighting poverty. A 
CBPP analysis using the government's Supplemental Poverty Measure, 
which counts SNAP as income, found that SNAP kept 4.9 million people 
out of poverty in 2012, including 2.2 million children. SNAP lifted 1.4 
million children above 50 percent of the poverty line in 2012, more 
than any other benefit program.
    SNAP is also effective in reducing extreme poverty. A recent study 
by the National Poverty Center estimated the number of U.S. households 
living on less than $2 per person per day, a classification of poverty 
that the World Bank uses for developing nations. The study found that 
counting SNAP benefits as income cut the number of extremely poor 
households in 2011 by nearly \1/2\ (from 1.6 million to 857,000) and 
cut the number of extremely poor children by more than half (from 3.6 
million to 1.2 million).
    SNAP is able to achieve these results because it is so targeted at 
very low-income households. Over 91 percent of SNAP benefits go to 
households with incomes below the poverty line, and 55 percent goes to 
households with incomes below \1/2\ of the poverty line (about $9,895 
for a family of three in 2014).
    During the deep and prolonged recession and weak recovery, SNAP has 
become increasingly valuable for the long-term unemployed as it is one 
of the few resources available for jobless workers who have exhausted 
their unemployment benefits. In 2010, according to the Joint Economic 
Committee, over 20 percent of those who had been unemployed for more 
than 6 months received SNAP benefits. Nearly 25 percent of households 
in which someone's unemployment benefits ended were enrolled in SNAP.
Figure 3
SNAP Cuts Extreme Poverty Almost in Half


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          Source: Shaefer and Edin, ``Rising Extreme Poverty in the 
        United States and the Response of Federal Means-Tested Transfer 
        Programs,'' National Poverty Center, University of Michigan, 
        May 2013.

    SNAP also protects the economy as a whole by helping to maintain 
overall demand for food during slow economic periods. In fact, SNAP 
benefits are one of the fastest, most effective forms of economic 
stimulus because they get money into the economy quickly. Moody's 
Analytics estimates that in a weak economy, every $1 increase in SNAP 
benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity. Similarly, CBO has 
found that SNAP has one of the largest ``bangs-for-the-buck'' (i.e., 
increase in economic activity and employment per budgetary dollar 
spent) among a broad range of policies for stimulating economic growth 
and creating jobs in a weak economy.
SNAP Improves Long-term Health and Self-sufficiency
Figure 4
Children With Access to Food Stamps Fare Better Years Later


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          Source: Hoynes, Schanzenbach, and Almond, ``Long Run Impacts 
        of Childhood Access to the Safety Net,'' National Bureau of 
        Economic Research, November 2012.

    While reducing hunger and food insecurity and lifting millions out 
of poverty in the short run, SNAP also brings important long-run 
benefits. Programs that help poor families with children afford the 
basics may help improve longer-term outcomes for children by reducing 
the added stress that parents or children may experience if they cannot 
pay their bills or do not know there will be food on the table. While 
researchers are only starting to explore the relationship between 
safety net programs and toxic stress and its long-term consequences, 
the early findings are striking.
    A recent National Bureau of Economic Research study examined what 
happened when government introduced food stamps in the 1960s and early 
1970s and concluded that children who had access to food stamps in 
early childhood and whose mothers had access during their pregnancy had 
better health outcomes as adults years later, compared with children 
born at the same time in counties that had not yet implemented the 
program. Along with lower rates of ``metabolic syndrome'' (obesity, 
high blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes), adults who had 
access to food stamps as young children reported better health, and 
women who had access to food stamps as young children reported improved 
economic self-sufficiency (as measured by employment, income, poverty 
status, high school graduation, and program participation).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Hilary W. Hoynes, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Douglas 
Almond, ``Long Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net,'' 
National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 18535, 2012, 
www.nber.org/papers/w18535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting and Encouraging Work
Figure 5
Work Rates Have Risen, Especially Among Households With Children and 
        Adults Who Could Be Expected to Work


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


        
          Source: CBPP tabulations of USDA Household Characteristics 
        data

    In addition to acting as a safety net for people who are elderly, 
disabled, or temporarily unemployed, SNAP is designed to supplement the 
wages of low-income workers.
    The number of SNAP households that have earnings while 
participating in SNAP has more than tripled--from about two million in 
2000 to about 6.9 million in 2012. The share of SNAP families that are 
working has also been rising--while only about 28 percent of families 
with an able-bodied adult had earnings in 1990, 55 percent of those 
families were working in 2012. The increase was especially pronounced 
during the recent deep recession, suggesting that many people have 
turned to SNAP because of under-employment--for example, when one wage 
earner in a two-parent family lost a job, when a worker's hours were 
cut, or when a worker turned to a lower-paying job after being laid 
off.
Figure 6
SNAP Households With Working-Age Non-Disabled Adults Have High Work 
        Rates


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


        
          Source: CBPP calculations based on 2004 SIPP Panel data.

    SNAP benefits help low-wage working families make ends meet. For a 
family of three with one wage earner who works at $10 an hour, SNAP 
increases the family's take-home income by roughly ten percent to 20 
percent, depending on the number of hours worked.
    In addition, the SNAP benefit formula contains an important work 
incentive. For every additional dollar a SNAP recipient earns, her 
benefits decline by only 24 to 36--much less than in most other 
programs. Families that receive SNAP thus have a strong incentive to 
work longer hours or to search for better-paying employment. States 
further support work through the SNAP Employment and Training program, 
which funds training and work activities for unemployed adults who 
receive SNAP.
    Most SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with 
at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while 
receiving SNAP--and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or 
the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families 
with children. (Almost 70 percent of SNAP recipients are not expected 
to work, primarily because they are children, elderly, or disabled.)
SNAP Supports Healthy Eating
    While I've focused so far primarily on SNAP's role in reducing 
poverty, responding to downturns, and supporting work, we should not 
forget that SNAP enables low-income households to afford a healthier 
diet. Because SNAP benefits can be spent only on food, they raise 
families' food purchases more than an equivalent amount of cash 
assistance would. Fruits and vegetables, grain products, meats, and 
dairy products comprise almost 90 percent of the food that SNAP 
households buy. In addition, all states operate SNAP nutrition 
education programs to help participants make healthy food choices.
Strong Program Integrity
    SNAP has one of the most rigorous payment error measurement systems 
of any public benefit program. Each year states take a representative 
sample of SNAP cases (totaling about 50,000 cases nationally) and 
thoroughly review the accuracy of their eligibility and benefit 
decisions. Federal officials re-review a subsample of the cases to 
ensure accuracy in the error rates. States are subject to fiscal 
penalties if their error rates are persistently higher than the 
national average.
Figure 7
SNAP Error Rates Are at an All-Time Low


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          Source: Quality Control Branch, U.S. Food and Nutrition 
        Service.

    The percentage of SNAP benefit dollars issued to ineligible 
households or to eligible households in excessive amounts fell for the 
seventh consecutive year in 2013 to 2.61 percent, newly released USDA 
data show. That's the lowest national overpayment rate since USDA began 
the current system of measuring error rates in 1981. The underpayment 
error rate fell to 0.6 percent, also the lowest on record. The combined 
payment error rate--that is, the sum of the overpayment and 
underpayment error rates--fell to an all-time low of 3.2 percent.\4\ 
Less than one percent of SNAP benefits go to households that are 
ineligible. In other words, more than 99 percent of SNAP benefits are 
issued to eligible households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See the Fiscal Year 2013 error rates: http://www.fns.usda.gov/
snap/quality-control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If one subtracts underpayments (which reduce Federal costs) from 
overpayments, the net loss to the government last year from errors was 
about two percent of benefits.
    In comparison, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates a tax 
noncompliance rate of 16.9 percent in 2006 (the most recently studied 
year). This represents a $450 billion loss to the Federal Government in 
1 year. Underreporting of business income alone cost the Federal 
Government $122 billion in 2006, and small businesses report less than 
\1/2\ of their income.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ For both SNAP and taxes the figures represent gross estimates 
(i.e., before SNAP households repay overpayments, taxpayers make 
voluntary late payments, or consideration of IRS enforcement 
activities.) The net costs are somewhat lower. See: Internal Revenue 
Service, ``Tax Gap for Tax Year 2006, Overview,'' January 6, 2012, 
http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/overview_tax_gap_2006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The overwhelming majority of SNAP errors that do occur result from 
mistakes by recipients, eligibility workers, data entry clerks, or 
computer programmers, not dishonesty or fraud by recipients. In 
addition, states have reported that almost 60 percent of the dollar 
value of overpayments and almost 90 percent of the dollar value of 
underpayments were their fault, rather than recipients' fault. Much of 
the rest of overpayments resulted from innocent errors by households 
facing a program with complex rules.
Figure 8
92 Percent of Federal SNAP Spending Is for Benefits


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2013

    Finally, SNAP has low administrative overhead. About 92 percent of 
Federal SNAP spending goes to providing benefits to households for 
purchasing food. Of the remaining eight percent, about five percent was 
used for state administrative costs, including eligibility 
determinations, employment and training and nutrition education for 
SNAP households, and anti-fraud activities. About three percent went 
for other food assistance programs, such as the block grant for food 
assistance in Puerto Rico and American Samoa, commodity purchases for 
the Emergency Food Assistance Program (which helps food pantries and 
soup kitchens across the country), and commodities for the Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
SNAP's Relationship With Other Programs
    Now that I have reviewed some of SNAP's most critical features, 
I'll discuss how SNAP is influenced by and influences other programs. 
I'll focus on two aspects of how SNAP relates to other Federal 
assistance programs:

   One, SNAP's benefit structure is highly responsive to other 
        forms of assistance that households may receive; and

   Two, SNAP is a part of a larger health and human services 
        system, and state administrators work to coordinate its 
        delivery and program rules with other programs where 
        appropriate. Other programs can rely upon SNAP's rigorous and 
        high-quality assessment of a household's financial 
        circumstances. These efforts can result in far more efficient 
        application and enrollment systems as well as be the means to 
        connect struggling families and seniors seamless to the 
        benefits that can help them. Moreover, because SNAP's 
        assessment of eligibility is robust, using its eligibility 
        determination or verified information can increase program 
        integrity and accountability in other programs.
SNAP's Benefit Design Is Highly Responsive to Other Federal Assistance 
        Programs
    Of course, people cannot survive solely on SNAP benefits alone. 
Many individuals and families whose circumstances qualify them for SNAP 
also meet the eligibility criteria for other programs. SNAP's low-
income senior population typically has income from Social Security or 
Supplemental Social Security (SSI) benefits. Unemployed individuals may 
combine SNAP with unemployment insurance benefits to cover their 
monthly expenses. Working families with children who participate in 
SNAP may also receive subsidies to cover their child care costs from 
the limited funding of the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
(CCDF). Because SNAP is the program of last resort, it calculates food 
assistance benefit levels to households after capturing their available 
income to purchase food (while no other program may count SNAP as 
income). This approach enables it to wrap around the benefits of other 
safety net programs and to help fill in many of the gaps. SNAP targets 
its benefits to the households that have the fewest resources available 
to afford an adequate diet. Several features set SNAP apart among 
programs:
    Its national benefit structure is responsive to other programs. 
Unlike many other benefit programs, which are restricted to particular 
categories of low-income individuals (such as senior citizens, people 
with disabilities, families with children, veterans, or people who 
recently became unemployed), SNAP is broadly available to almost all 
households with low incomes. SNAP eligibility rules and benefit levels 
are, for the most part, set at the Federal level and uniform across the 
nation. These SNAP features ensure that poor families have adequate 
nutritional resources regardless of where they live. The amount of a 
family's SNAP benefits depend on its income, and as a result, SNAP 
benefits tend to be higher in states with below-average wages and cash 
assistance benefits. The program narrows disparities between low-income 
families and communities in poorer states and those in more affluent 
states. This aspect of SNAP is especially important to southern states 
and rural areas, where wages (as well as cash assistance benefits) tend 
to be lower. For example, cash assistance benefits for families with 
children that have no other income are about four times higher in 
states that make the highest cash assistance payments than in the 
lowest-payment states. When SNAP benefits are added in, this disparity 
narrows to less than 2-to-1.
    It reflects other programs' income to households. SNAP counts cash 
income from all sources, including earnings from a job as well as 
unearned income, such as cash assistance, Social Security, unemployment 
insurance, and child support. Thus, households that qualify for and 
receive benefits from other Federal or state programs receive lower 
SNAP benefits than households that have no other cash income available 
to purchase food. This helps to ensure, for example, that a family with 
a single parent who loses her job and cannot find a new job before her 
unemployment insurance ends still has resources available to purchase 
an adequate diet for her children.
    It allows deductions to help ease inequities. SNAP also targets 
benefits by allowing deductions from income for the cost of certain 
essential household expenses (such as rent and child care) before 
determining benefits. For example, although earning a low income makes 
many workers eligible for child care and housing assistance, only a 
small number are able to participate in these programs because of 
capped Federal funding.
    Consider two families that live next door to each other: if one 
receives a housing voucher or a subsidy to help afford child care costs 
but the other does not, the latter family may have to spend more than 
\1/2\ of its income on its shelter or child care expenses. As a result, 
that family will have considerably less money available to buy food. 
SNAP helps to partially address this inequity by allowing the household 
without the subsidy to deduct a portion of the housing or child care 
expense from its income and receive a higher SNAP benefit. While this 
targeting of benefits adds some complexity to the program, it is 
critical in focusing assistance more effectively on those in greatest 
need.
    To be sure, there are some exceptions to this framework to 
eliminate inequities that can arise from counting all sources of 
income, such as a grant to a third party meant to cover job training 
tuition. And, in other cases, Congress has explicitly excluded certain 
sources of income, such as special combat pay for military personnel, 
for public policy reasons. Nevertheless, the Agriculture Committees 
have endeavored for over 40 years to establish a SNAP benefit structure 
and calculation that is highly sensitive to family circumstances, 
including other forms of assistance.
Efforts to Coordinate SNAP With Other Programs
    Part of our work at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is 
to work with states on improving the delivery of SNAP. We respond to 
states' questions and requests for technical assistance on SNAP rules, 
best practices for business operations and ways to improve access to 
SNAP by eligible people. Because SNAP has a significant presence within 
the health and human services delivery system, states' questions and 
concerns are not limited to SNAP policy and operations. They also want 
information and ideas about how to improve their overall operations and 
service delivery, including other programs such as Medicaid, child 
care, cash assistance through the Temporary for Needy Families (TANF) 
block grant and other programs. My colleagues and I have spent a great 
deal of time studying how SNAP interacts with other programs at the 
state and local level and the ways that states seek to coordinate SNAP 
with the array of services that they offer.
    Many states have made progress over the last 10 years in 
coordination or seamless service delivery across programs (as opposed 
to within a single program). Although, some states had coordinated 
policies on the books, too often the on-the-ground procedures needed to 
operationalize these policies did not exist. In addition, few if any 
states had an effective, data-based system for determining whether 
families were connected to the full range of programs for which they 
qualify.
    Lack of cross-program coordination undermines states' efforts to 
operate efficient systems. It also reduces overall support for 
families. Because they must navigate a complex and inefficient web of 
systems, families often are unable to secure the full package of 
benefits for which they are eligible. This undermines the safety net's 
ability to support struggling families and seniors. For example, 
children are much likelier have better outcomes when they have access 
to health coverage and SNAP's nutrition benefits for a comprehensive 
set of health supports.
    Consider a family with low earnings that is eligible for children's 
health coverage, SNAP, and child care. Despite the fact that these 
programs often serve the same families and require very similar 
enrollment information, under the worst case scenario a struggling 
family would have had to apply and renew benefits via three separate 
processes that are not very synchronized. Further, busy state workers 
in these three programs would spend time duplicating each other's' 
efforts. More typical, although still highly problematic, was a model 
where households would apply for several benefits through a single 
application process and then be required to keep separate workers 
representing the different programs appraised of their circumstances. 
Often, the household would also have to renew their eligibility through 
separate and redundant processes.
    While these approaches to service delivery still exist, they are no 
longer the norm. States have worked very hard to break down the silos 
and redundant administrative systems among programs. They have been 
motivated by several reasons:

   As a result of the recent downturn, millions more families 
        have lost income or are now out of work altogether. And many of 
        these families have turned to their state governments for help 
        through programs like unemployment insurance, SNAP, and health 
        coverage. In addition, more people are eligible for health 
        coverage through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance 
        Program (CHIP) because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But 
        states haven't had more resources to deal with the increased 
        demand. To the contrary, human services offices' budgets and 
        staff were cut as millions more people have walked through the 
        doors. Despite these incredibly trying circumstances, states 
        have managed to serve these new families in need, and several 
        states have actually improved their service delivery through 
        the downturn.

   Technology offers new opportunities. In a paper-bound 
        system, it was often hard or administratively burdensome to 
        share information across programs. Now many states have new 
        options to work quickly. For example, today most states use 
        document imaging systems as a means to save and file household 
        verifications. They also offer call centers where clients can 
        call and easily report a change in their situation and need for 
        benefits. This technology can make it easier for participants 
        and for state caseworkers to update multiple programs for new 
        information about household circumstances.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ For more information on how states are leveraging new 
technology with respect to health and human services programs, 
including SNAP, see ``GAINING GROUND: A Guide to Facilitating 
Technology Innovation in Human Services,'' by Freedman Consulting, 
http://tfreedmanconsulting.com/documents/GainingGround_FINAL.pdf.

   Finding effective ways to leverage state resources to 
        achieve more is in the states' interest. When state agencies 
        spend less staff time on processing eligibility, they can 
        redeploy those resources to more important tasks like 
        connecting families to work and supporting families who need 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        more intensive supports.

   Making it easier for eligible low-income families and 
        seniors to access all of the benefits for which they are 
        eligible helps states' struggling citizens. Making sure that 
        eligible individuals can access the help that they need will 
        help to ensure their financial stability. Many states believe 
        that families can better spend their time looking for work (and 
        staying in work) as well as address other family needs when 
        they are not constantly at the local human services office 
        standing in line and filling out redundant forms. As the body 
        of evidence regarding the long term benefits of key health and 
        human services programs emerge, it becomes even more compelling 
        to connect eligible families and individuals to a package of 
        these supports.
SNAP's Role in Cross-Program Coordination Efforts
    SNAP has played a major role in these efforts. Federal, state, and 
local policymakers who operate other programs appreciate many of SNAP's 
features that I described earlier. They understand SNAP's significant 
role in the broader health and human services world. Some of the key 
contexts that state and local leaders consider as they assess SNAP's 
role in their broader systems:

   Individuals eligible for SNAP have relatively low income. As 
        a result, they are often eligible for other Federal and state 
        benefits. For example, in virtually all cases, children who 
        participate in SNAP will also be financially eligible for 
        health coverage under Medicaid. And, for programs where states 
        set the income eligibility rules such as child care subsidies 
        and the low-income heating and energy assistance program 
        (LIHEAP), SNAP participants typically have incomes well below 
        the eligibility limits established by states. To be sure, SNAP 
        participants will not necessarily qualify for these benefits. 
        Some programs such as WIC or child care have additional non-
        financial eligibility criteria. In other cases, the programs do 
        not receive sufficient funding to provide services or benefits 
        to all those who qualify. Nevertheless, given that a large 
        number of very low-income people participate in SNAP, it is a 
        logical program to consider for basic coordination purposes.

   States co-administer SNAP with other major health and human 
        services programs. According to USDA's most recent State 
        Options Report from 2012, more than 40 states co-administer 
        SNAP and Medicaid.\7\ Even more states co-administer SNAP and 
        cash assistance under TANF. In addition, many of the agencies 
        that administer SNAP also administer other human services 
        programs such as child care, LIHEAP, job training programs as 
        well as state and local services targeted at low-income people. 
        This means that SNAP co-exists with other programs in state 
        computer systems, within state policy manuals, in staff 
        trainings, and on forms and notices. Finding efficient ways to 
        coordinate the administration of these programs makes solid 
        operational sense from a state and local perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See program integration table on page 23 http://
www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/10-State_Options.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      States seek new approaches to be more efficient and effective in 
        their business operations and administrative costs. As the 
        state human services agencies build computer systems, train 
        staff, and build business operations to screen and enroll 
        eligible low-income people into the array of programs that they 
        offer, they look to solicit information from applicants once to 
        assess their eligibility for the programs and services that the 
        agency provides.

   SNAP rigorously assesses eligibility. As noted above, SNAP 
        does a very thorough review of a household's eligibility. SNAP 
        state agencies are required to verify household circumstances 
        through paper documentation and third-party data matches. 
        Overall, the assessment required under Federal law for SNAP far 
        exceeds the requirements laid out in any other program. SNAP 
        demands that states have relatively sophisticated means to 
        process eligibility and verify a household's circumstances. The 
        quality and caliber of SNAP eligibility assessments is well 
        understood within the health and human services arena. Not only 
        can other programs rely upon the quality of SNAP's eligibility 
        findings, in many cases, using information that has been 
        verified by SNAP will increase the integrity of the program 
        importing the information.

    Despite its strengths, SNAP isn't a perfect partner. SNAP is a 
complex program with exacting Federal standards. Because SNAP is a 
program of last resort and its benefits are fully financed by the 
Federal Government, the program rules target benefits to the neediest 
households with a very detailed current picture of their situation. 
Federal rules require quite a bit from households and states to ensure 
that the determination of eligibility is accurate and fair. As a 
result, SNAP's complicated rules exceed what other programs require or 
desire. States do not typically wish to import all of SNAP's rules into 
other programs. Instead, they find that they can import individual 
findings from SNAP, such as an income calculation, to other programs.
Examples of Cross-Program Coordination
Figure 9
Many Children Likely Eligible for SNAP and Medicaid/CHIP Fail To 
        Receive One Or Both Supports (2011)


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


        
          Note: Program participation among citizen children with 
        family income below the poverty level and no reported health 
        insurance. The data should be viewed with caution. See footnote 
        11.
          Source: CBPP analysis of a Survey of Income and Program 
        Participation.

    One of our current efforts to support states' efforts to improve 
program integration is through the Work Support Strategies (WSS) 
Initiative. The WSS Initiative is a foundation-supported effort led by 
the Center for Law and Social Policy and the Urban Institute. The 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities leads the technical assistance 
effort to states. The project is motivated by the value public benefit 
programs can provide to working families and the belief that the states 
and localities administering these programs can improve how eligible 
families access and retain these benefits. Under the project, core work 
support programs are defined as SNAP, health coverage, and child 
care.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ For more information about WSS, see: http://www.urban.org/
worksupport/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many eligible people, particularly in working families, do not 
participate in the core work supports for which they are eligible. In 
some instances, this is simply due to limited funding for the service. 
For example, although earning a low income makes many workers eligible 
for child care and housing assistance, only a small share are able to 
participate in these programs because of capped Federal funding. The 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimates that 
Federal funding for child care subsidies served fewer than 20 percent 
of potentially eligible families in 2009.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ ``Estimates of Child Care Eligibility and Receipt for Fiscal 
Year 2009,'' U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of 
the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, August 2012, 
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/12/childcareeligibility/ib.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Also, families often miss out on programs that do, in fact, have 
sufficient funding to enroll all eligible people. For example, USDA 
estimates that SNAP served only 68 percent of people in eligible 
working families in 2011. The Urban Institute found that four million 
children who had no health insurance in 2011 were eligible for Medicaid 
or CHIP.\10\ Data from national surveys confirm that children who are 
likely eligible for SNAP and Medicaid are not always enrolled in both. 
Virtually all U.S. citizen children in families whose annual income is 
at or below poverty and who do not report having health coverage should 
be eligible for both Medicaid/CHIP and SNAP. Figure 9 \11\ shows that 
nearly 40 percent of children likely to be eligible for both SNAP and 
health coverage are not receiving both programs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ ``Medicaid/CHIP Participation Rates Among Children: An 
Update,'' Urban Institute, September 2013, http://www.urban.org/
uploadedpdf/412901-%20Medicaid-CHIP-Participation-Rates-Among-Children-
An-Update.pdf.
    \11\ The data for this analysis are from the Census Bureau's Survey 
of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) for calendar year 2011. We 
limited the analysis to U.S. citizen children with incomes below the 
Federal poverty level because these individuals are very likely to be 
eligible for both Medicaid and SNAP. The data should be interpreted 
with caution, as the SIPP significantly undercounts participation in 
Medicaid and SNAP. In 2009 the number of children reported in the SIPP 
as receiving SNAP is only about 75 percent of the number of children 
thought to have actually received SNAP based on SNAP administrative 
data. USDA finds that SNAP reaches about 85 percent of eligible 
children, rather than the 67 percent identified in this SIPP analysis. 
Similarly, the SIPP does not include about \1/3\ to 40 percent of the 
children who receive health coverage through Medicaid or CHIP.
    \12\ A recent Urban Institute study based on a different national 
survey (the American Community Survey) found that in 2008 about 15 
percent of children without health insurance coverage but eligible for 
Medicaid or CHIP were in households that received SNAP. This difference 
demonstrates that while there appear to be significant numbers of 
families that do not receive all the benefits for which they qualify, 
national survey data have significant limitations which may make it 
difficult to obtain accurate figures. See Genevieve M. Kenney, Victoria 
Lynch, Allison Cook, and Samantha Phong, ``Who And Where Are The 
Children Yet To Enroll In Medicaid And The Children's Health Insurance 
Program?'' Health Affairs, October 2010, vol. 29 no. 10, 1920-1929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our WSS grantee states (Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, North Carolina, 
Rhode Island, and South Carolina) have taken on the challenge of 
creating and implementing a plan to streamline, integrate, and improve 
the provision of work support benefits through their SNAP, Medicaid, 
and child care programs. Each state committed to the goal of increasing 
enrollment by eligible people in these core work support programs. 
While most states hope their efforts will also reduce the burden on 
caseworkers and administrative costs in these systems, all are 
motivated to improve the lives of the families they serve. These states 
are undertaking this work at an exciting time. The ACA changed the way 
that states must assess Medicaid eligibility, requiring states to 
rework their old eligibility rules. In addition, the ACA sets new 
standards for customer service and the means of doing eligibility 
determinations, which has required many states to upgrade their 
technology and offer new services such as online applications and phone 
service. As states implement these important changes and upgrades in 
Medicaid, they are actively looking for ways to leverage improvements 
in their overall systems.
    Illinois Health and Human Services Secretary Michele Saddler 
outlined the state's transformation of several key programs--like SNAP 
(food stamps), Medicaid, and child care--to help low-income families 
keep and maintain jobs in a hearing before the Ways and Means Committee 
last summer. Illinois is simplifying and aligning policies across 
programs and investing in new technology to make it easier for families 
to apply and easier for the state to verify their information. As 
Saddler explained:

          ``When I began, our benefit delivery system was broken. 
        Families had to apply multiple times to get the assistance 
        their family desperately needed. They had to take hours or even 
        days off of work to sit in a local office to get help, 
        potentially losing the very work we encourage. Our focus has 
        been on finding and creating efficiencies in this system, 
        seeking a better environment for customers and staff. A more 
        efficient and accessible system leads to greater stability for 
        families and ultimately saves the government future costs of 
        benefits and administration.'' \13\ 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Secretary Michelle Saddler's testimony before the House 
Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, July 31, 
2013, see: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
michelle_saddler_testimony_hr073113.pdf.

    Through both our everyday work with states and the WSS Initiative, 
we have observed many ways other programs can use SNAP to streamline 
their own administrative processes as well as improve the client 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
experience.

   States and other program operators have implemented the 
        federally mandated connections between SNAP and other programs. 
        Congress has made the determination that, in some cases, 
        enrollment in SNAP is sufficient evidence of financial 
        eligibility for another program. For example, all children who 
        participate in SNAP are deemed automatically eligible for the 
        free school meals program. Pregnant and post-partum women and 
        young children receiving SNAP are income eligible for the 
        Special Supplemental Nutrition program for Women, Infants, and 
        Children (WIC) although they must still meet the program's 
        criteria for nutrition risk to qualify. In these cases, 
        Congress deemed that school meals and WIC must rely upon the 
        SNAP income determination because it is so reliable. Moreover, 
        households who apply for SNAP are self-identifying themselves 
        as needing food assistance. Connecting these children and 
        pregnant women to other programs that could help meet their 
        nutrition needs is a sensible approach.
      The new Work Opportunity Investment Act will allow individuals 
        who participate in SNAP (among other programs) to be 
        automatically determined to meet the income requirements for 
        services. Other Federal programs, such as Federal Financial 
        Student Aid programs, allow applicants to skip certain portions 
        of their needs assessments if the applicant or his or her 
        family participate in SNAP. Program participation is considered 
        a sufficient indication of financial need under the programs' 
        eligibility rules.

   States and local governments use SNAP enrollment and 
        information where they have the flexibility to set the rules. 
        States can set the income eligibility guidelines for certain 
        programs such as child care assistance through the Child Care 
        Development Block Grant (CCDF) and energy assistance through 
        LIHEAP. If states establish income eligibility rules equal to 
        or above the SNAP income eligibility limits, they can then use 
        a household's enrollment in SNAP as sufficient evidence that 
        the family meets the program's income eligibility limits.
      Idaho, for example, recently raised its CCDF income eligibility 
        to 130 percent of the Federal poverty line, and indexed it to 
        rise with inflation--thus, aligning the cutoff with SNAP and 
        ensuring that the alignment would stay in force over time.\14\ 
        Programs like child care subsidies and LIHEAP are often run by 
        local community action agencies that do not have the resources 
        to invest in sophisticated computer eligibility systems with 
        built-in third-party data checks. By using SNAP's income 
        determination, states ensure a high-quality, accurate 
        assessment of need. Other entities that target their resources 
        to low-income individuals or households also use SNAP 
        enrollment as evidence of need. For example, school districts 
        may elect to waive school fees for individuals who participate 
        in SNAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ ``Confronting the Child Care Eligibility Maze: Simplifying and 
Aligning with Other Work Supports'', by Gina Adams and Hannah Matthews, 
December 2013, p. 31, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412971-
confronting-the-child-care.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      It's worth noting again that importing a SNAP income eligibility 
        determination does not necessarily qualify an individual for 
        other programs' benefits. Often there will be other eligibility 
        criteria and most human services programs do not have funding 
        to meet demand.
      States coordinate eligibility and enrollment processes with SNAP 
        to eliminate redundant requests. Where states cannot or do not 
        wish to align other programs' income eligibility rules with 
        SNAP (e.g., states often set much higher income eligibility 
        guidelines for child care subsidies because they wish to 
        provide child care subsidies to low- and moderate-income 
        households), they may seek to coordinate or to align the 
        processes by which they determine that applicants are eligible. 
        Approximately \1/3\ of states package SNAP online applications 
        with at least four other programs. This means that people 
        seeking more than one form of assistance only need to fill out 
        a single application. Similarly, workers need to process only 
        one application and the supporting verification.
      Income verification is another area where the eligibility rules 
        might differ but states could align the process. For example, 
        one program might ask for the four most recent weeks of income 
        while another asks for the last 30 days of income and a third 
        asks for monthly income. Instead, a state might choose to set a 
        different income eligibility limit for SNAP and another program 
        but use the same income verification standards against which 
        they measure eligibility. Because SNAP is often the most 
        significant program in terms of size and paperwork and 
        verification demands as well as quality control reviews, states 
        often align other programs to its standards. New Hampshire and 
        Oklahoma are two states that have standardized the types of 
        verification they seek from families applying for both SNAP and 
        child care.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Ibid, p. 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      States can also use verified data in the SNAP record to support 
        eligibility determination and redeterminations in other 
        programs such as Medicaid or child care. This approach, often 
        called an ex-parte review, allows families' benefits in other 
        programs to be proactively renewed using current information 
        from another program such as SNAP. The agency looks at other 
        systems before seeking any information from the client at 
        renewal. If a child care worker, for example, checked if a 
        family was enrolled in SNAP, they could use SNAP data to renew 
        income eligibility for child care benefits and would need to 
        gather only the additional relevant information on work status 
        or other unique child care eligibility elements.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Ibid, p. 40.

    To be sure, perfect alignment is rarely achieved and often is not 
desirable. First, SNAP's rules do differ from other programs'. The SNAP 
household definition is based on which group of individuals living 
together purchase and prepare food together. This understandably 
differs from which group of individuals could be expected to contribute 
to the health care costs of others. Moreover, SNAP's eligibility 
standards are rigorous. Households are required to provide extensive 
documentation of their circumstances, participate in an eligibility 
interview, report significant change in their circumstances as they 
arise, and have their eligibility reassessed on a regular basis. Other 
programs do not have the necessary administrative funding to pursue 
such an approach, nor would it be appropriate for them to do so given 
their structure and design.
    As states work to better coordinate their systems, they are 
discovering that there is often far more flexibility in Federal 
programs to align and coordinate, or cross-leverage, information than 
they thought. Often disconnects are the result of their own making or a 
lack of understanding of the flexibility given to them by the Federal 
Government. Other times, differences between programs are by design and 
originate from the programs' different goals, as described above in the 
household definition example. And, there are times when states discover 
differences between programs that raise reasonably questions. For 
example, several states have asked if they can use employer records to 
verify household income via states' unemployment records for households 
with stable circumstances. Medicaid allows and encourages states to use 
third party data matches to verify income even if the information is a 
little dated. SNAP historically has required current information even 
from households with very stable employment arrangements. In such a 
case, the Federal Government will permit waivers from Federal SNAP 
requirements to test whether allowing SNAP to use other programs' rules 
is appropriate and cost effective. And USDA and HHS are soliciting 
additional ideas from states where sensible alignment opportunities 
exist.
Looking Ahead: SNAP's Relationship to Other Assistance Programs
    I appreciate the Subcommittee's effort to delve into the 
relationship between SNAP and other Federal assistance programs. SNAP 
plays a major role in the broader arena of health and human services 
programs. It is both responsive to and has a significant impact on many 
programs outside of the Committee's jurisdiction. I hope that my 
testimony has given you some sense of how your work influences other 
programs through SNAP. The state agencies and SNAP caseworkers that 
operate and implement SNAP must think about the program in the context 
of the health and human services systems they are running. It's helpful 
to consider SNAP's environment and program operators' perspectives as 
we strive to improve the program and further its positive impact on 
struggling individuals and families.
    There can be a tension between remaining true to SNAP's goals of 
addressing food insecurity and hunger and harmonizing and coordinating 
SNAP policies with other Federal assistance programs. If SNAP aligned 
perfectly with other programs, it would no longer be SNAP. Many of its 
unique features are by design and contribute to its success. As you 
consider options to improve coordination, it is important that those 
proposals not undermine SNAP's strengths as a food assistance program 
targeted to individuals and families with the least ability to purchase 
food. Proposals to sweep away some of SNAP's key features or that would 
shift benefits away from food assistance to other purposes run afoul of 
the program's goals and proven success.
    Section 4016 of the 2014 Farm Bill is an example of a positive 
policy change to help harmonize SNAP with other programs. That 
provision requires that USDA work with other Federal agencies to create 
data exchange standards consistent with other Federal assistance 
programs. This will facilitate the ability of programs (and Federal and 
state governments) to share data across programs. Such standardization 
is expected to help improve program integrity and to improve our 
ability to assess program performance.
    USDA can do more to assist states' efforts to administer SNAP as 
part of the larger health and human services system. First and 
foremost, USDA's oversight and policy development would be strengthened 
if its staff developed more expertise in other Federal assistance 
programs. When SNAP policy is inconsistent with other major programs 
such as Medicaid, it would be helpful for USDA to be aware of those 
differences and to flag them for states. (The same holds true for HHS.) 
State and local governments, even individual caseworkers, ought not to 
be left on their own to disentangle differing Federal rules and 
regulations. It seems reasonable for the Federal agencies to navigate 
what we ask their state counterparts to manage. That having been said, 
USDA has taken steps to engage SNAP agencies in a conversation about 
how the recent changes in Medicaid could be affecting SNAP operations 
at the local level. They can do more here, and I encourage them to do 
so.
    As states undertake innovative and effective cross-program 
coordination efforts, we ought to seek to share those best practices 
across states. The Work Support Strategies Initiative offers such an 
opportunity and we plan to do more dissemination about the project in 
the coming year.
    I also believe that the Federal Government could do more to assess 
how well Federal and state agencies are doing with respect to 
connecting eligible low-income people to the package of key supports 
for poor children, working families, and seniors and people with 
disabilities. Low-income people will likely fare better if they can 
count on the help of SNAP, health coverage, and other work supports--
programs that we know work and that improve the long-term outcomes of 
those who receive them. Policymakers need information about how well 
states connect eligible individuals to these programs as a whole. We 
can learn from states that do well and identify barriers in Federal 
rules or local practice that may impede states from comprehensively 
addressing their residents' needs.
    Finally, I did not spend time in my testimony on the interaction 
between SNAP and the major Federal entitlements for seniors and people 
with disabilities--Social Security and Medicare. Current SNAP law 
instructs the Social Security Administration (SSA) to inform Social 
Security and SSI applicants and participants about SNAP benefits and 
streamline the SNAP application process for them. USDA reimburses SSA 
for these activities. As low-income senior citizens have the lowest 
SNAP participation rates of any demographic group, but very high Social 
Security and Medicare participation rates. I believe that more could be 
done to assist poor eligible seniors to enroll in SNAP at SSA offices. 
A future oversight hearing or more work by USDA to explore how this 
process could be improved could go a long way to improving the food 
security of low-income senior citizens and people with disabilities.
Conclusion
    SNAP is an efficient and effective program. It alleviates hunger 
and poverty and has positive impacts on the long-term outcomes of those 
who receive its benefits.
    SNAP is highly targeted, making it very sensitive to the other 
benefits that families receive. SNAP either counts their income or 
recognizes households that receive benefits from other programs by 
generally providing less assistance to those families than families who 
do not receive other forms of assistance.
    And, SNAP has exacting standards with respect to eligibility and 
administrative requirements. This makes it a good fit for states to 
looking to use its findings for other programs. Such integration 
increases efficiency by reducing administrative costs and can help 
eligible families receive the help that they need with fewer 
transaction costs.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Dean. Your timing is 
immaculate.
    Ms. Dean. I practiced.
    The Chairman. The chair would like to remind the Members 
that they will be recognized for questioning in the order of 
seniority for Members who were present at the fall of the 
gavel, and after that Members will be recognized in the order 
that they arrived.
    And recognizing myself for first questions, I would turn to 
Ms. Squier. And I believe in your testimony the time didn't 
allow you to get to a point of an exhibit that is in your 
written testimony. That is a directive, dated September 30, 
2009, from the USDA Food and Nutrition Services. Could you 
explain that directive and the impact that it has had on, let's 
say, the policy in New Mexico and perhaps other states that you 
might be aware of?
    Ms. Squier. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman and Members. I have 
worked in many states, five states and the Federal Government. 
And in Texas in 2009 we were told by the Federal Government 
that we would now be acknowledged, not quite rewarded, but 
acknowledged for adding people to the food stamp rolls. This is 
what USDA FNS wanted us to do. And I did actually attend in New 
Orleans an award ceremony for Texas for adding a number of 
people to the rolls. I was slightly horrified about that.
    We are doing the same thing in New Mexico and I believe 
every other state. And I think that the push--and I will be 
fair, the push has gone through more than one Administration--
the push to put people on food stamps has caused an incredible 
rise. And to be acknowledged by the Federal Government to do so 
has caused more people to join onto the Food Stamp Program.
    The Chairman. And, Ms. Squier, the language that I see in 
this memo says, ``We encourage you to continue promoting 
expanded categorical eligibility as a way to increase SNAP 
participation and reduce state workloads.''
    Ms. Squier. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly true.
    The Chairman. That has had a significant impact across the 
country as far as your experience is concerned?
    Ms. Squier. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And, Mr. Doar, you have dealt with large 
claims in a large population state and have noticed actually a 
significantly high degree of professionalism come out of that 
arena. I think you are in the crucible a little harder than 
many others. And so from that standpoint I would ask you, if 
you had a limited budget to work with, with regard to SNAP 
benefits, and you had to get that carved down to something that 
was manageable, what would be your approach with regard to 
categorical eligibility? Do you have any creative things like 
fingerprints? Any other items you might want to discuss that 
could----
    Mr. Doar. Sure. The State of New York, after I left, made 
the decision to accept categorical eligibility with regard to 
the asset test. And I had felt as the City Administrator that 
that was a mistake, because I felt that it allowed people who 
had assets that could be available to help them in times of 
need to avoid reporting those assets. And we had an experience 
where we felt, by not investigating assets and by not being 
able to inquire about assets, people were more likely, who did 
have sufficient means and would not be eligible for the program 
based on income, it was easier for them to get on the program.
    So that would definitely be something that I would speak 
about. In my testimony, I suggested it should be higher than 
the asset test used to be, but it should not be unlimited 
assets.
    The Chairman. And with regard to other categorical 
eligibility, with regard to TANF for example?
    Mr. Doar. I think that in any program where you say to 
someone, you are automatically eligible based on the fact that 
you have read a brochure or that you have been given a 
brochure, it seems to me that sends a kind of message that 
isn't really the way we want our programs to be run. So I 
wasn't comfortable with that categorizing. But the thing I was 
most concerned about was the asset test.
    We did have finger imaging as an effort to protect against 
duplicate benefit issuances. Mayor Bloomberg felt very strongly 
that it was an effective measure. It was an effective measure 
in New York City. We still have it for welfare applicants for 
TANF. But Governor Cuomo, under some pressure from the Federal 
Government, decided that we could no longer do that. And it 
wasn't so much that we caught people as much as we deterred 
people from applying for benefits in multiple jurisdictions.
    The Chairman. What if we went down a path that might be a 
block grant on a per capita basis or perhaps a cost-share so 
the states had some skin in the game?
    Mr. Doar. Well, one of the characteristics is that given 
the current benefit levels, a block grant of SNAP calculated 
based on the current benefit amounts going out to states would 
be quite high. So if the country is heading into a stronger 
recovery where the need for these sorts of benefits was 
reduced, the states would have dollars freed up and they should 
be required to spend it on social services programs, but they 
could spend more effectively than a stipend for food.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Doar. I thank the witnesses. 
And now I turn to Ranking Member Fudge for her questioning.
    Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But because I know the 
time is fleeting and we do have another series of votes, I am 
going to yield at this point to Mr. McGovern and I will ask my 
questions at the end.
    Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 
Ranking Member.
    I just want to make sure that we understand the context 
here before I go into my comments or my questions. I mean, we 
live in a country where there are 50 million people who are 
hungry or food insecure. Close to 17 million of them are kids. 
So we have a real issue here with people living in the United 
States, the richest country in the history of the world, that 
are vulnerable and need some support.
    And, Ms. Squier, when you said that people who have 
millions of dollars in the bank are eligible for SNAP, if that 
is the case in New Mexico someone ought to be fired, because 
that is not the case anyplace else. I don't know too many 
millionaires who are dying to get on SNAP. I don't know why 
they would. The average benefit is about $1.40 per meal, per 
day. So it is not something that I think people aspire to.
    In terms of categorical eligibility, we all ought to keep 
in mind that this was a conservative idea proposed about by 
John Kasich as a way to reduce some of the costs to states and 
to make it easier, quite frankly, for people who are eligible 
for a variety of programs to be able to get them. Being poor is 
hard work, and sometimes it is a bureaucratic maze to be able 
to find out what you are eligible for. So this was supposed to 
streamline the process.
    So before we throw categorical eligibility out the window, 
let's understand what it is about. And I will yield to Ms. Dean 
for a comment.
    Ms. Dean. I just want to throw in a few of the facts about 
categorical eligibility. I think there has just been a little 
too much rhetoric.
    This Committee considered repealing categorical eligibility 
over the last year or 2, and the estimate that CBO gave you 
showed that it would reduce baseline spending and remove people 
from the program equal to about two percent. So there is no way 
that categorical eligibility is the cause or the fuel for 
caseload growth.
    I think another important thing to point out is while 
states under the option have the flexibility to adopt a less 
restrictive gross income test, meaning relaxing the rule of 
about $2,200 a month gross income for a family of three, to 
slightly higher so that a working mom paying a huge amount of 
her income in rent and child care may qualify. However, she 
still has to go through a rigorous assessment of eligibility 
and qualify after her disposable income is counted.
    Mr. McGovern. I appreciate you for clarifying that.
    And, Mr. Doar, I agree with you. This is not a perfect 
program, and I think we need to look at ways to better help 
people transition from poverty into independence.
    I think the benefit is, in my opinion, not generous enough. 
People who are on SNAP usually end up in food banks because it 
is not this overly generous benefit.
    The majority of people who are able to work actually do 
work. I am going to give you an example. I spent a night at a 
homeless shelter in Worcester, Massachusetts, about a month 
ago, a family homeless shelter. The majority of adults in that 
homeless shelter worked. They were making minimum wage, just 
enough so their benefits began to get cut, they hit this cliff, 
but not enough to put a downpayment on an apartment and afford 
to pay rent in Worcester, Massachusetts. So maybe we ought to 
be talking about making work pay a little bit better and maybe 
increase the minimum wage.
    From 2009 to 2014, the cost of milk increased by 17 
percent, but the minimum wage hasn't changed. From 2009 to 
2014, the cost of eggs increased 23 percent, but the minimum 
wage hasn't changed. So, I mean, part of what we ought to be 
talking about, as well as kind of streamlining the program, is 
making sure that people are getting an adequate benefit to put 
nutritious food on the table for their families.
    And I am curious, there has been some criticism of some 
large employers who pay their workers low wages knowing that 
even full-time employees will qualify for SNAP. Does anyone 
have an opinion on this? Is the Federal Government subsidizing 
SNAP?
    Mr. Doar. Well, I would just address a couple of questions 
about this rigorous application process. The SNAP application 
process has changed a lot in the last 10 years. And to the 
extent that it is not quite the number of rules, the number of 
recertification periods, the ability to do interviews, not face 
to face, but over the phone or over the Internet, have made the 
process much easier to be accurate.
    So if you don't have a lot of rules that you have to follow 
in order to be sure you are giving benefits to people who are 
really eligible, then it is easier not to break any of those 
rules. So I want to caution you, I was proud of our QC record 
in New York City and New York State as well, but some of it 
came because the job got easier, because the rules were 
lessened and reduced.
    Mr. McGovern. Yes, just one final thing. As a Member of 
Congress who does a lot of casework, a lot of people who fall 
on hard times end up coming to us because they can't quite 
figure out the system. So maybe it has gotten easier, but I 
will just tell you that it is not easy for a lot of poor 
families when they find out that someone has lost a job and 
they can't afford their rent or they can't afford to pay their 
heating bill.
    Mr. Doar. There is a balance, there needs to be a balance.
    Mr. McGovern. It is a balance, and I think we ought to 
strike that balance. I just worry about the fact that when we 
talk about these issues, sometimes we end of demonizing these 
people--and I am not saying you are, I am not saying you are, 
at all--but sometimes we end up demonizing people who are poor, 
who desperately do not want to be poor, and who are working.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's yielded time has expired. 
You will be allowed, though, to answer the question, Mr. Doar.
    Mr. Doar. We expanded benefits during the time that I 
served both at the state and city, maybe greater than any other 
constituency. I believed in helping people. But the purpose was 
to help people who also could get into work. And often what we 
found is that people were not reporting earnings when we 
expected they would, and that is a problem that we have to 
address.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's yielded time has expired.
    I turn now to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I get into 
my questions, I want to say thank to you a group back home in 
the district that I represent in Thomasville and Valdosta; they 
are also in Albany and Douglas. It is the Second Harvest Food 
Bank, 13,000 square miles, 30 counties that they operate in 
where they take the vegetables and the bread and the other 
things from grocers who maybe aren't quite up to standard for 
selling and make sure that they are able to help get that to 
many of the people who need it the most in our district.
    As we talk about this issue, there are a lot of people out 
there who are trying to resolve this issue for Americans across 
the country, and it is a serious issue. And, Mr. McGovern, I 
certainly appreciate your passion for it. I know we differ on 
some ideas of how to resolve it, but I do agree with you that 
there are people out there that need the help, and there are a 
lot of people that are out there working to help them. And I do 
appreciate your passion on it.
    The reason, as we talk about the two percent, if you will, 
whether it is two percent or five percent, the challenge we 
have right now to me is the integrity of the system. And when 
you allow the integrity to start to slide through, whether it 
is categorical eligibility or whether it is turning your head 
and looking the other way, and I would suggest that even with 
the states, some of the states, what they are doing is 
essentially state-sanctioned gaming of the system, then any of 
the programs lose support of the American citizen, and that is 
where we have the problem.
    And whether it is one percent fraud or two percent fraud or 
ten percent fraud, we have a responsibility to address that 
fraud, because if we don't, then in the end we will be able to 
serve fewer people and the money doesn't go to the people who 
actually need it the most.
    So again, I want to say thank you to Second Harvest Food 
Bank who I have the privilege of representing, who does a great 
job of getting quality food at a tremendously reduced price to 
the people who need it throughout three Congressional districts 
in the State of Georgia, one of which is mine.
    With that said, I want to move to the integrity of the 
system, if you will. Ms. Squier, as we talk about the 
difference in state and Federal requirements for the system, do 
you believe that the states have a better chance of putting the 
integrity in the system or do you think that the Federal 
Government would do a better job of putting integrity into the 
system?
    Ms. Squier. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I believe the 
states----
    The Chairman. Your microphone.
    Ms. Squier. We have shown with the TANF program what the 
states can do, a hugely successful program. And while I know 
you don't want to dwell on this fact, one of the things we can 
do in the Food Stamp Program is what we did in the TANF 
program, and that is have a work requirement for those who are 
not already working. Because I do understand that you have poor 
out there that are working and struggling every day.
    But the able-bodied--I am not talking about disabled people 
or older people--able-bodied people with an able mind have 
risen that are now getting food stamps. And there is a reason 
for that, and that is because we have made it so easy. And I 
would like to see the states run programs that fit for them 
specifically.
    Mr. Scott. Would any of the other of you like to comment on 
that briefly?
    Ms. Dean. I think that what we have right now is a strong 
partnership, Federal oversight for a national problem, which is 
hunger in America. People are not different, they are hungry in 
Kentucky versus Texas versus Washington. Having a national 
nutrition standard is crucial, the rules and the rigor with 
which you, Congress, establish for the program that states then 
operate.
    I think states by and large do a terrific job. Can we hold 
them to a higher standard, push them to do better and more? 
Absolutely, both with respect to integrity and serving all 
eligible people. But it has been a very successful partnership 
to date.
    Mr. Doar. I think that we have been doing this for a long 
time this way, and I think that there is room for 
experimentation and testing of different approaches in which 
states could experiment using the food stamp benefits or the 
funding provided by food stamps to run a program that 
encouraged work more and provided assistance equally as 
effectively.
    Mr. Scott. I certainly support the work requirement.
    If I can, Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. I have 
one other organization in Georgia, a group called Manna, that 
has done a wonderful job in helping alleviate hunger and 
malnutrition throughout the world, Fitzgerald, Georgia. They 
take the good Georgia peanuts and they mix it with vitamins and 
it is provided for children around the world. And they have 
done an excellent job, and I want to say thank you to the 
people there for what they have done.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields 
back. And I remind the panel that we are expecting votes in 
about 10 minutes, which means we might have 20 minutes at the 
outside. And I appreciate your cooperation.
    I recognize Ms. Lujan Grisham for her 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome, Ms. Squier. And I am really going to focus on 
New Mexico, and I wish we were doing that in a way, because we 
are proud of what is going on in New Mexico. And I will repeat 
this again in my testimony and my question, but we are now the 
most food insecure for children in the country and nearly the 
most food insecure for adults in the country.
    So as we talk about partnerships, the role for Federal 
oversight, and given that I have been in a state cabinet, it is 
a hard job, as Ms. Squier will attest to. But, in fact, our 
Human Services Department had questioned and actually had a 
judge require that they do things differently in terms of many 
of their benefit programs, which is why you absolutely need a 
partnership.
    And I really appreciate that you are here because I do 
think we need to have reform conversations, to think about 
proactive ways to make these programs more stable for the 
future. I know that you haven't been doing that in New Mexico 
and you are not working and won't testify before the New Mexico 
Legislature. So I am really honored that you are willing to 
come before us today.
    Now, you are part of a thing called the Secretary's 
Innovation Group, and it recommends that SNAP be converted to a 
fixed allocation with work requirements, 30 hours per week 
being the family norm.
    I think every New Mexican would love that every able-bodied 
adult would have meaningful employment, but let's be mindful 
about the conditions around the country and let's talk about 
New Mexico. We are ranked 48th for job growth among the states. 
Albuquerque, which is the heart of my district, is in a double-
dip recession, the only community in the country in that 
situation, we lost 2,700 jobs over the last year.
    As I said, we have the highest rate of food insecurity, 31 
percent for children.
    So bearing in mind that New Mexico has these challenges 
that our residents face, I am trying to understand exactly what 
you are proposing. When there aren't enough jobs to go around, 
do we tell these kids and these families, ``I am sorry, you 
will be hungry''? Because with a 31 percent rate, it looks to 
me that is exactly what would be said with a mandatory work 
program.
    Ms. Squier, how do we reconcile that?
    Ms. Squier. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative. 
And I, too, would like to brag a little bit about New Mexico 
because we are number one in the nation on the School Breakfast 
Program. And we have also instituted School Breakfast After the 
Bell. We do school lunches. And now we are introducing----
    Ms. Lujan Grisham. But those don't require work programs.
    Ms. Squier. And, no, they don't.
    Ms. Lujan Grisham. So let's focus on the work requirements. 
And, in fact, I would disagree with you about the efforts in 
school nutrition, which have also been under severe and 
consistent criticism.
    So talk to me about how people are going to get jobs in 
states like New Mexico. And, given your proposal, just how 
would that work to take the 31 percent of kids who are hungry 
and make them not hungry?
    Ms. Squier. Well, Mr. Chairman, Representative, I would 
disagree with you a little bit about the jobs that are out 
there. What I am doing right now is running a program in a 
little part of the state called Hobbs. And it was a pizza 
delivery, Domino's, and they needed people to work, and they 
couldn't get them.
    Ms. Lujan Grisham. Because Hobbs has a huge oil and gas 
boom, Ms. Squier, with so many high-paying jobs, six-figure 
incomes for people who are doing custodial work and driving 
trucks. So let's just focus on----
    Ms. Squier. They couldn't get them because the people 
couldn't pass the drug test.
    Ms. Lujan Grisham. I am going to go on to something else, 
Ms. Squier. In New Mexico, you have managed to cut TANF 
benefits and reduce the number of participants in the program 
by 35 percent. Seems to me you have plenty of flexibility. You 
have also slowed enrollment in what used to be a model SNAP 
program to the point where 10,000 people are caught in a 
backlog waiting to receive benefits.
    When we add that backlog to the other programs, there are 
at least 30,000 people that are waiting for months to receive 
emergency assistance. This became so urgent that in May a 
Federal judge ruled that the New Mexico Human Services 
Department was failing in its obligation to provide timely 
services and ordered the Department to remove systemic and 
programmatic barriers and process applications immediately.
    Again, it seems to me that you have found many ways to have 
flexibility in the programs and make it difficult to enroll and 
to reach as few people as possible. I think it is important 
that this Committee be clear that when we talk about 
flexibility and reform, and it sounds like it is a good thing, 
but in reality it could mean kicking off the very people we are 
trying to protect. We need to find reforms that really target 
that population.
    And I would like to ask, yes or no, that if Congress were 
to adopt your recommendations, would we--would I expect to see 
even bigger backlogs in the State of New Mexico?
    Ms. Squier. There are no current backlogs, ma'am. And you 
are right that there was a backlog, and that is because the 
Affordable Care Act and the Federal Government sent incomplete 
files to us. So we had extra work to do to the tune of about 
30,000 of them a month.
    Ms. Lujan Grisham. I completely disagree with you about 
that. But in any event, I raise these issues to point out that 
the partnership is important. New Mexico had a model SNAP 
program. It does not today. And that making sure that we have a 
balanced approach, Mr. Chairman, I think is an effective way 
forward.
    [The clarifying information submitted is located on p. 59.]
    Ms. Lujan Grisham. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
    And anticipating no regional disagreement between the Ohio 
Members, I would turn to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I would like to say that these programs are 
important and everybody that needs help should get the help. 
And I am pleased to say that in the recent farm bill we passed 
we did increase the funding for food banks. I think, as Mr. 
Scott talked about earlier, food banks play a really big role 
and prevent a lot of food from going to waste to help the 
needy.
    But first, Mr. Doar, and the whole panel, cited statistics 
how participation in SNAP has increased and even during the 
economic cycles it doesn't go like this anymore, it just keeps 
going like this, up. And of course that could be, I guess, we 
are in a stagnant economy, part-time work and low-income jobs, 
and that is another issue for another day, I guess. But I think 
we do need to make sure we protect taxpayers' interests. And 
there are nearly 50 million people on the SNAP program now. And 
you mentioned, Mr. Doar, that some are working off the books. 
Some refuse to work.
    Do you have any idea what percentage of people on SNAP 
might be totally not eligible?
    Mr. Doar. Well, this is a hard number to get at, and we 
need to continue to work on it, because it is not reported 
exactly the way you would expect it to be. Because when someone 
applies for SNAP, they answer questions concerning whatever 
income is in their household. And one question is, do you have 
earnings? And so we should know how many people who are not 
disabled, not elderly, and not children are getting SNAP but 
don't report any earnings.
    And in my testimony, I have estimated what we think it is, 
and it has grown. And so it is a large number. And I know that 
in my experience in New York City that there were people--and I 
don't have a number, it needs further study--who were receiving 
Medicaid and SNAP and working in good fashion except in a way 
that was off the books.
    Mr. Gibbs. So you are saying it is a significant number?
    Mr. Doar. It is an issue. There isn't any question.
    Mr. Gibbs. Okay. To follow that a little bit, what was the 
average time--this is to the panel, not just to Mr. Doar--of 
people being on SNAP in the past and maybe today? Has that 
changed? Is it the average time? What is the average time?
    Mr. Doar. I don't have that.
    Ms. Dean. The latest study was from about 10 years ago. The 
median length of stay at the time was 10 months; for workers, 
it was shorter, about 8 months; and for seniors, for example, 
with fixed incomes, longer, 12 to 24 months.
    Mr. Doar. And I would just point out that 10 years ago is a 
long time in the change of the SNAP program.
    Ms. Dean. No, without a doubt. But that is the most recent 
available data.
    Mr. Gibbs. Okay. On this categorical eligibility, does that 
help people get off SNAP programs? I mean, does it work the 
other way? We have heard so much discussion about if you 
qualify for LIHEAP and these other programs, you qualify for 
food stamps, my understanding. Now, if you fall off of one of 
the other programs, would they come in and look and see if you 
still qualify for food stamps? How does that mechanism work?
    Mr. Doar. Do you want to address that?
    Ms. Dean. Well, just to say, the reasons governors or State 
Commissioners adopted the option, for example, was to help 
stabilize working families. We have working families just above 
the income cutoff in SNAP--which again, for a family of three 
is a little over $2,100 a month, who might be paying quite a 
bit of their income for rent and child care--and wanted to 
offer them the help of food assistance because after we looked 
at their budgets, their disposable income, they couldn't afford 
a basic diet for their kids.
    So with that added help, does it help keep them in their 
job? That was the theory of change of these governors.
    Just again to reiterate, they still had to come in and go 
through a thorough assessment of eligibility. What categorical 
eligibility allows is a relaxing of the gross income rule or 
the asset test. It does not automatically qualify someone for 
the benefit. They still have to be determined eligible.
    Mr. Gibbs. Just another question to the panel. In the 
Agricultural Act of 2014 that we passed, are there incentives 
in there to help people to get off SNAP to go to work?
    Mr. Doar. That question you are raising is an interesting 
one in terms of the pressures and forces of the program from 
either the Federal Government or the state. I don't, in 18 
years of being in the program, I don't sense that there was 
ever some sort of desire to help people get off. There 
certainly was a great desire to help people get on who were 
eligible. But SNAP is not a program that focuses on working so 
that benefits are no longer needed, in my judgment.
    Mr. Gibbs. It sure seems like, what you just said, that a 
significant amount of people that are receiving SNAP benefits 
can work--or refuse to work.
    Mr. Doar. Well, I am not so sure about refuse to work. They 
are not being asked. Remember, in the TANF program we have set 
up these programs to help people get into employment. They do 
exist. But we are not making them available or encouraging or 
requiring SNAP recipients who are not reporting earnings to 
take advantage of them.
    That is what I want. And remember, it is not to go get a 
job, it is come in and be engaged in an activity or receive a 
service that can help get you a job. That is also part of the 
requirement associated with work.
    Ms. Dean. But I am worried this is leaving the impression 
that there aren't participants on the program who are, in fact, 
working. In fact, that may be one reason, I think you pointed 
to it in the beginning of your question, as to why SNAP 
caseloads remain elevated even though the unemployment rate is 
falling. Setting aside the unemployment rate not being the 
perfect measure of the economy, we probably have many 
individuals who weren't working who have taken low-paying, low-
hour jobs. They remain eligible.
    Mr. Gibbs. My time has expired. I yield back Mr. Chairman.
    That is because we have this stagnate economy. It is just 
growing at barely one percent or negative.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
    And I now recognize Mrs. Negrete McLeod for her 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Negrete McLeod. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I guess I was living in another world and you were living 
in a parallel world, because in California there were no jobs 
to be found. I don't know about your states, but in California, 
we had such a depression during the recession that I don't know 
where TANF workers, where food stamp workers, people that are 
recipients were able to get a job. Even people that had 
degrees, that had Ph.D.s, couldn't get a job. So I don't know, 
maybe I am living somewhere else.
    Mr. Doar. Well, in New York City we had a pretty strong 
economy. The recession hit us, and we came out of it earlier 
and we came out faster. So we did have a lot of job 
opportunities, there isn't any question. And that is why I am 
concerned about it, is because I also have these people 
receiving this benefit that I thought was a work support, but 
they are not working and there was an economy that produced 
jobs.
    Mrs. Negrete McLeod. Well, I guess New York is a little 
more lenient than California, because anybody that was 
receiving any kind of aid of any kind had to have some way to 
show that they were looking for a job, and if they had a job, 
then their benefits for certain programs were then lessened, or 
second, cut off completely.
    So I guess what I have to ask you all, if any policy 
changes that would reduce the SNAP eligibility, is it going to 
reduce eligibility for any other program in your states?
    Ms. Squier. Mr. Chairman, Representative, it would more 
mirror the eligibility as opposed to reduce it. For instance, I 
think what some of us are proposing, not all of us, is that we 
do a TANF-like program and mirror the Food Stamp Program to 
that program. I think it would be more of a mirroring and not a 
reducing.
    Ms. Dean. Although certainly people on SNAP qualify for 
other things. For example, children enrolled in the SNAP 
program are auto-enrolled into the Free School Meals Program, 
which is very sensible. These are families who are very low 
income and they have self-identified themselves as food 
insecure. If we restricted eligibility for SNAP and those 
families weren't on SNAP, they potentially would not qualify, 
for example, for the Free School Meals Program.
    Mrs. Negrete McLeod. I am sure you know that any child that 
is hungry cannot learn.
    Ms. Dean. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Negrete McLeod. Okay. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
    And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, 
Mr. McAllister.
    Mr. McAllister. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    One thing I just want to make sure that we are all clear on 
is, we talk a lot about the people and the jobs and all, and I 
want to make it clear that the blame here is not to be put on 
the people that are on the SNAP program. The blame is to be put 
on those of us that sit in Congress, past, present, and future, 
because we have created the system that has not the 
accountability and has allowed the abuse and the different ways 
that we are sitting here talking about today to make sure the 
accountability is there for the people that are either on the 
system today, will be on the system tomorrow, whether they have 
a job and they are receiving SNAP or they are not receiving 
SNAP.
    So with that, there are a few questions I want to ask. And 
this one goes to you, Ms. Dean. You correctly pointed out that 
the temporary benefit boost was part of the 2009 Recovery Act. 
And it ended in November that last year. Your testimony cites 
the reductions of seven percent over the first 9 months of 
Fiscal Year 2014, which was October 2013 through June 2014. Is 
the reduction in benefits so due to the lapse of bonus benefits 
in the Recovery Act?
    Ms. Dean. That is quite a bit of it in terms of the 
spending, actually, and then as a result, average benefits are 
a little bit lower than we thought they would be. So, in fact, 
there is a little bit more there. But we in fact have fewer 
participants in the program. So it is both things that are 
going on.
    Mr. McAllister. So you would say there has been a reduction 
in the number of beneficiaries?
    Ms. Dean. Yes.
    Mr. McAllister. Okay. So Mr. Doar testified that even 
though the economy has begun to strengthen, the number of 
recipients is not dropping at an expected rate.
    Mr. Doar. It is not dropping at the rate it dropped in the 
1980s. It has not dropped in the rate that it dropped in the 
1990s. And there is always a lag. There is always a lag. But 
this is a long lag. This is a longer lag than before.
    And I should also point out that while it has dropped in 
the past year, in the most recent month it went up. So there is 
something different happening now than used to happen. Now, 
there may be explanation for that, but it has been different.
    Ms. Dean. But this downturn, it was so far in excess of 
anything we had experienced in previous recessions. We lost 
more jobs, individuals were unemployed for longer periods of 
time, and we are adding far fewer jobs back to the economy, 
many of which are at low pay and low hours. So, to me, I would 
like to see the caseloads coming down because the economy is 
rebounding, but it just hasn't done that yet.
    Mr. McAllister. And I agree. I think everyone on this 
panel, and everyone in Congress agrees that we would love to 
see a society where no one was on the SNAP program. We would 
love to see everyone above the poverty line. That is what we 
all strive for.
    I represent the ninth poorest district in the country, and 
I see it every day. And what I see with the SNAP program is I 
do see the abuse.
    And what I would like to see is accountability happen to 
where the program is to where we provide to where the farm bill 
works for the farmers and the SNAP program works together; to 
where the nutrition value is there, but it is only certain 
items that provides nutrition; to where it has been 
incentivized, being on the SNAP program, as to where there is 
only a certain amount of items that you can go in the grocery 
store and you can get.
    It is not just anything that you can go in there and get. 
It is not an EBT card that gives you anything. It is those 
nutritional value items that you get. So that you are limited 
to what you get, but it is the nutritional value that you need, 
so kids are not hungry, they are getting what they need.
    Mr. Doar. Congressman, Mayor Bloomberg proposed just a test 
of limiting what you could purchase with SNAP by eliminating 
something that was clearly not nutritious and a complete waste 
with regard to health, sugary and sweetened beverages, and the 
USDA rejected an experiment that would allow us to limit.
    So you are asking for something that is just very hard to 
change in the history of USDA. And it is unfortunate. But it is 
something worth considering, especially considering the amount 
of money that is spent on products that are not of nutritional 
value.
    Mr. McAllister. And that is where I come back to where I 
say the accountability comes back on us, the body of Congress. 
This is our fault. This is not the recipients' fault.
    And you were talking about how do we get people off of it? 
We have worked real hard on the marriage. This is one case 
where we should have been working harder on the divorce. We 
should have been trying to figure out how does it come a time 
to where we get them off the program. And how do we work to get 
them off the program? We work on better education. We work on 
giving them the tools to get those better jobs.
    And, yes, you are right, we have to have the jobs, we have 
to create and put the jobs there for them to have. But when the 
jobs are there--and just like you was talking about in Hobbs 
and other places--we have to have the skill sets to be able to 
get those better paying jobs when they are there, whether they 
are the six-figure jobs or whatever.
    But if we don't give them the skill sets, we have failed as 
a society to get them prepared. And that comes back on us as a 
body of Congress. And that is not a Democratic issue, that is 
not a Republican issue, that is an American issue. And we are 
failing this country when we don't give those tools, when we 
are marrying them to the problem, we are developing a culture 
year after year, decade after decade of making them be 
dependent on us as a government.
    So with that, I yield back any time, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Louisiana yields back.
    And the chair now recognizes Ranking Member Fudge for her 5 
minutes and any closing statement she might choose to offer.
    Ms. Fudge. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me get a few things clear that I was confused about.
    Mr. Doar, my colleague Mr. Gibbs asked you about the number 
of people that you thought were basically scamming the system, 
and you said you didn't know. So if you don't know, you can't 
say it is significant. You either don't know or do you know.
    Mr. Doar. Well, I----
    Ms. Fudge. Do you know? The question is, sir, do you know?
    Mr. Doar. What I said in my testimony was that the extent 
to which unreported income is in the households of SNAP 
recipients, off-the-books earnings, is something we should 
study.
    Ms. Fudge. Do you know the number?
    Mr. Doar. I do not know the number----
    Ms. Fudge. That is the question, sir. That is my question.
    Mr. Doar.--I am giving my experience.
    Ms. Fudge. Second, you indicated that these people are 
being paid off the books. So if you are aware of businesses who 
are illegally paying people under the table, have you reported 
that abuse?
    Mr. Doar. No, I have not reported that abuse.
    Ms. Fudge. Okay. That is the answer that I need, you have 
not. Either you don't know or you have not reported, and in 
either case, you should.
    Mr. Doar. It is something that needs to be studied and 
looked into because it is clear it is happening.
    Ms. Fudge. So you don't know. Okay.
    Let me just ask this question as well.
    Ms. Squier, you indicated that if someone just gets a 
brochure that they are eligible for TANF.
    Ms. Dean, is that accurate?
    Ms. Squier. Not TANF.
    Ms. Dean. Under the TANF block grant, states can spend TANF 
funds on a wide variety of needs. TANF, bottom line, is a 
funding stream, not a program. So, yes, states can spend TANF 
funds----
    Ms. Fudge. How the state chooses, correct?
    Ms. Dean. Yes.
    Ms. Squier. But that would be food stamps that I was 
indicating.
    Ms. Fudge. Go right ahead.
    Ms. Squier. If someone receives a brochure about TANF, that 
can in New Mexico make them eligible.
    Ms. Fudge. It can. It can. But you indicated that every 
single person that gets it is eligible. That is what you said. 
I just want to be clear.
    Ms. Squier. And I believe in New Mexico that is true.
    Ms. Fudge. Okay. So that is New Mexico. I can't argue that 
because I don't know New Mexico law.
    Let me just also ask, I mean, we have heard a lot about 
fraud. And my friend Mr. McAllister, who I think is such a 
wonderful person, he says that he sees this in his district. I 
have heard a lot of my colleagues say the same thing. But I 
don't know that anybody reports it.
    If there is so much fraud and you see it, why would it not 
be reported? We are all sworn to uphold the law in this body. 
And so I would hope that if someone sees fraud that they would 
report it, because then maybe we could get a handle and maybe 
we would give Mr. Doar the answers that he needs as to who is 
not doing what they should be.
    Ms. Dean, you talked earlier about the strong program 
integrity and payment accuracy for SNAP. Could you just 
elaborate just a bit on that for me briefly?
    Ms. Dean. Sure. First, when an applicant applies, they do 
fill out in many places a very lengthy application. And then 
they are interviewed, and they have to provide paper 
verification of much of what they attest to on the application. 
Then an independent body within the state, quality control 
reviewers, pull each month a sample of cases and go back and 
independently check those. The Federal Government then goes in 
and re-reviews those. So it is an incredibly rigorous quality 
control system.
    Last month, USDA issued the results for over and 
underpayments through this system for 2013, and they found 
record lows for the seventh consecutive year; states have been 
bringing those over and underpayment error rates down. The 
overpayment rate fell to 2.6 percent, and the underpayment rate 
was 0.6 percent, which means a net loss to the government of 
about two percent.
    I just want to compare that quickly to other systems. The 
last year the IRS took a look at something similar was in 2006, 
and there we had 17 percent of taxes legally due went unpaid. 
So, frankly, the system does compare relatively well.
    Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
    And I remember earlier on Ms. Squier mentioned the fact of 
the numbers of people who pay taxes and those who did not. And 
I am certain you meant to include in that group that does not 
multi-million dollar, multinational corporations as well, whose 
taxes could significantly help poor people and hungry people.
    Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that, again, SNAP is 
something that people have very strong opinions about, pro and 
con. But what I do know is that there are many hungry children 
in this country who but for SNAP would not survive from day to 
day. There are many people in this country who work hard every 
day to make a living and feed their families who just need an 
extra help, just need a hand up, not a handout.
    And so I am hopeful that at some point we can come together 
and decide what to do with this. As far as I am concerned we 
have made a decision, the farm bill is done. Let's look forward 
to some things that we really can change.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady, the Ranking Member, 
and all of the witnesses.
    In summary of this hearing, I would point out that it is 
clear to me that the Administration and the previous 
Administration both promoted SNAP signups in various ways, 
particularly with a September 30, 2009, statement. If we are 
looking at reining in growth, we didn't speak very much about 
the governors abusing the system and sending $20 LIHEAP checks, 
but that is part of the categorical eligibility that I would 
like to be expanded a little further on.
    The work requirements are an alternative. And then some 
other discussion we had was block grants, cost-share. And 
something that didn't come up that I am interested also is 
state investigative authority.
    So this has opened up a lot of topics, and I think it has 
expanded the dialogue. We have a common cause that it is 
important that we take these resources and apply them to the 
best use. And I think we all do agree on that.
    So under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's 
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive 
additional material and supplementary written responses from 
the witnesses to any questions posed by a Member.
    This Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, and 
Nutrition hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
 Supplementary Information Submitted by Hon. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a 
               Representative in Congress from New Mexico
          Ms. Squier. There are no current backlogs, ma'am. And you are 
        right that there was a backlog, and that is because the 
        Affordable Care Act and the Federal Government sent incomplete 
        files to us. So we had extra work to do to the tune of about 
        30,000 of them a month.
          Ms. Lujan Grisham. I completely disagree with you about that. 
        But in any event, I raise these issues to point out that the 
        partnership is important. New Mexico had a model SNAP program. 
        It does not today. And that making sure that we have a balanced 
        approach, Mr. Chairman, I think is an effective way forward.

    The following documents were filed by the New Mexico Human Services 
Department (HSD) with the U.S. District Court for the District of New 
Mexico on July 22, 2014. Table 5, demonstrates a backlog of 15,480 
applications for assistance as of July 2014.
Case 1:88-cv-00385-KG-CG Document 519-1 Filed 07/22/14

                                                    Exhibit 1
                                 Overdue Plan Status Report as of July 15, 2014
                                               Week 4: July 14-18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Typical incoming case      Handling the     No. Cases over    Team Goal 1,000
                                           count                 volume?           30 days          Cases/day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SW Bernalillo                   290                                                        117
NPC *                           Dismantled Unit                                          1,816
Post Backlog Monitoring: **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                         No. Cases over
                                                             30 days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chaves County ISD                                                      0
Cibola County ISD                                                      0
Colfax County ISD                                                      0
Curry County ISD                                                       9
East Dona Ana County ISD                                              19
Eddy Artesia County ISD                                                1
Eddy Carlsbad County ISD                                               0
Grant County ISD                                                       0
Guadalupe County ISD                                                   0
Hidalgo County ISD                                                     0
Lea County ISD                                                       151
Lincoln County ISD                                                    15
Luna County ISD                                                        0
McKinley County ISD                                                  111
Medicaid Renewal Project                                               5
Northeast Bernalillo County ISD                                      169
Northwest Bernalillo County ISD                                        0
Otero County ISD                                                       0
Quay County ISD                                                        1
Rio Arriba County ISD                                                  0
Roosevelt County ISD                                                   1
San Juan County ISD                                                   39
San Miguel County CSU                                                  0
San Miguel County ISD                                                  0
Sandoval County ISD                                                    6
Santa Fe County ISD                                                    0
Sierra County ISD                                                      2
Socorro County ISD                                                     8
South Dona Ana ISD                                                     0
Southeast Bernalillo County ISD                                        5
Taos County ISD                                                        0
Tierra Amarilla County ISD                                             7
Torrance County CSU                                                   47
Torrance County ISD                                                    6
Union County ISD                                                       0
Valencia North County ISD                                              0
Valencia South County ISD                                              1
West Dona Ana County ISD                                              10
                                                       -----------------
  Total                                                          * 2,546
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Total includes Application Registration, Intake, Processing and
  Recertification.
** Offices in Post Backlog Monitoring are working overdue cases for Week
  4 offices.


                                                                       Exhibit 2 *
                                                        Applications and Eligible Clients Summary  
* This Summary is still under review and subject to change. 7/15/2014.

                                             Table--1  Total application received--Summary for ALL PROGRAMS
                        Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of application received ``IN THE MONTH''.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applications     Applications     Applications     Applications     Applications
                       Total       from YESNM that   from FFM that   from ASPEN that  from YESNM that   from FFM that
                    Applications       are not          are not          are not      are disposed as  are disposed as        ISD2            Total
      Month        Registered in    registered yet   registered yet   registered yet     duplicate         duplicate      Applications     Applications
                       ASPEN        (pending tasks   (pending tasks   (pending tasks       before           before
                                      in ASPEN)        in ASPEN)        in ASPEN)       registration     registration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Sep-13             2,236                9                0               14               52                0           28,288           30,599
       Oct-13             7,203              262                1               17              532                0           29,331           37,346
       Nov-13             8,757              184                0                2            1,268                0           23,366           33,577
       Dec-13            17,730              277                0                3            2,664                0           19,784           40,458
       Jan-14            27,681              543            1,486               14            2,702              166            5,422           38,014
       Feb-14            35,285              427               79               30            1,675              359            1,236           39,091
       Mar-14            44,048            1,024              194               25            1,703              130              284           47,408
       Apr-14            46,720              867              142               32            1,582              176               --           49,519
       May-14            53,416              370              111               30            2,450               90               --           56,467
       Jun-14            30,144               89               64              209            1,020              252               --           31,778
       Jul-14            12,111              650               79              767              410               17               --           14,034
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                           Table--2(a)  Total Medicaid applications registered--Broken down by source
                                      Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of Medicaid applications registered for a given month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Number of Medicaid Applications registered (by
                     source)                          Sep-13       Oct-13       Nov-13       Dec-13       Jan-14       Feb-14       Mar-14       Apr-14       May-14       Jun-14       Jul-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES-NM                                                       9          363          644        1,628        4,108        5,101        6,563        6,520       11,724        4,622        1,545
HSD Kiosk                                                   76          220          280          572        1,065        1,361        1,486          994          997          818          356
Community Partners                                           0            8           25          225          590          782        1,562        1,155        1,392          387          140
ASPEN                                                      536        1,206        1,617        3,195        5,389        6,782        7,731        8,278       11,898        6,254        2,516
PE/MOSAA                                                    26           43           44           50           91          137          132          454          319          454          218
SDX Interface (SSI Cases)                                  102          303          295        1,078          406          352          392          426          472          423          148
FFM                                                          0            0            0            0       10,889        3,024        7,537        3,665        1,003          275          207
8ISD2 applications0                                   811,8790     812,8660     811,1410     810,4780      81,5950        89270        82840                      8--0         8--0          800
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total                                                 12,628       15,009       14,046       17,226       24,133       18,466       25,687       21,492       27,805       13,663        5,025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             Table--2(b)  Total Cash applications registered--Broken down by source
                                        Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of cash applications registered for a given month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of Cash Applications registered (by
                     source)                          Sep-13       Oct-13       Nov-13       Dec-13       Jan-14       Feb-14       Mar-14       Apr-14       May-14       Jun-14       Jul-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES-NM                                                       9          164          197          473          955        1,123        1,333        1,481        2,389        1,251          619
HSD Kiosk                                                   75          179          239          411          700          762          834          619          753          601          266
Community Partners                                           0            6            6           12           44           39           47           40           45           47           19
ASPEN                                                      286          621          586        1,102        1,576        1,440        1,670        2,077        2,262        1,978          899
PE/MOSAA                                                     0            0            0            0            0           --            2          182            3            3            0
FFM                                                          0            0            0            0            0            0            0            2           --            0            0
8ISD2 applications0                                    84,0430      84,2570      82,8240      82,2660        86630         8260         8--0         8--0         8--0         8--0          800
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total                                                  4,413        5,227        3,852        4,264        3,938        3,390        3,886        4,401        5,452        3,880        1,803
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                             Table--2(c)  Total SNAP applications registered--Broken down by source
                                        Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of SNAP applications registered for a given month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of SNAP Applications registered (by
                     source)                          Sep-13       Oct-13       Nov-13       Dec-13       Jan-14       Feb-14       Mar-14       Apr-14       May-14       Jun-14       Jul-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES-NM                                                      33          495          703        1,450        3,235        3,779        4,828        5,456        8,509        3,922        1,738
HSD Kiosk                                                  207          514          737        1,277        2,182        2,585        2,917        1,921        2,142        1,597          719
Community Partners                                           0            7            9           49          168          231          316          350          328          157           78
ASPEN                                                      852        1,762        2,250        4,061        5,589        5,517        6,683        7,751        7,874        6,093        2,552
PE/MOSAA                                                     0            3            1            2            4            5            8          547           11            3            3
FFM                                                          0            0            0            0            0            1            1            2                         1            0
8ISD2 applications0                                   812,3660     812,2080      89,4010      87,0400      83,1640        82830         8--0                                   8--0          800
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total                                                 13,458       14,989       13,101       13,879       14,342       12,401       14,753       16,027       18,864       11,773        5,090
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                            Table--2(d)  Total LIHEAP applications registered--Broken down by source
                                       Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of LIHEAP applications registered for a given month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Number of LIHEAP Applications registered (by
                     source)                          Sep-13       Oct-13       Nov-13       Dec-13       Jan-14       Feb-14       Mar-14       Apr-14       May-14       Jun-14       Jul-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES-NM                                                       3          183          249          592        1,203        1,428        1,512        1,481        1,952          889          447
HSD Kiosk                                                   31          176          193          386          561          563          439          268          277          202           84
Community Partners                                           0            2            3           19           52           60           81           40           59           35           14
ASPEN                                                       63        1,378        1,277        2,690        3,213        2,979        2,235        1,923        1,854        1,521          688
PE/MOSAA                                                     0            2            0            1            3            5            4           82            5            7            3
FFM                                                          0            0            0            0            0            7           21            5            3            3            0
8ISD2 applications0                                      8N/A0        8N/A0        8N/A0        8N/A0        8N/A0        8N/A0        8N/A0        8N/A0        8N/A0        8N/A0        8N/A0
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total                                                     97        1,741        1,722        3,688        5,032        5,042        4,292        3,799        4,150        2,657        1,236
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A = Not available.


                                        Table--3(a)  Total applications certified by program--Pending to Approved
    Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that were disposed and approved in the given month (excluding ISD2
                                                                        figures).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Program      Sep-13       Oct-13       Nov-13       Dec-13       Jan-14       Feb-14       Mar-14       Apr-14       May-14       Jun-14       Jul-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicaid           335        1,333        2,439        4,816        9,711       14,835       18,245       19,085       19,013       16,501        7,109
 (include
 s Long
 Term
 Care and
 disabled
 )
Medicare            33          129          228          326          476          693          879          985        1,190        1,021          503
 Savings
 Program
Cash                51          266          336          680        1,036        1,109        1,303        1,550        1,830        1,852          893
SNAP (Non          244        1,200        1,826        3,857        5,634        6,472        6,999        7,558        8,263        7,165        3,385
 Expedite
 )
SNAP               114          417          496        1,875        3,295        3,957        4,702        5,104        5,534        5,417        2,148
 (Expedit
 e)
LIHEAP              12        2,646        2,651        4,817        5,715        6,014        4,012        2,917           57           52           16
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total            789        5,991        7,976       16,371       25,867       33,080       36,140       37,199       35,887       32,008       14,054
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Table--3(b)  Total applications certified by program--Pending to Denied
            Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that were disposed and denied in the given month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Program      Sep-13       Oct-13       Nov-13       Dec-13       Jan-14       Feb-14       Mar-14       Apr-14       May-14       Jun-14       Jul-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicaid           166          767        1,298        3,155        4,057        5,203        7,850        7,111        7,874        2,348        1,138
Medicare            25          109          246          418          694        1,041        1,166        1,144        1,403          891          493
 Savings
 Program
Cash                86          454          811        1,206        2,033        2,302        2,544        2,884        3,491        2,430        1,063
SNAP (Non           73          472        1,239        2,075        3,400        3,793        4,451        5,160        5,031        2,041        1,022
 Expedite
 )
SNAP                27          112          179          294          605          737          789        1,107        1,388          746          299
 (Expedit
 e)
LIHEAP              37          327          514        1,150        1,678        2,161        1,776        1,630        1,914        4,112        1,842
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total            414        2,241        4,287        8,298       12,467       15,237       18,576       19,036       21,101       12,568
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Table--3(c)  Total applications certified by program--Pending to Closed
   Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that were disposed and approved for a month and were closed for the
                                               ongoing months in the given month (excluding ISD2 figures).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Program      Sep-13       Oct-13       Nov-13       Dec-13       Jan-14       Feb-14       Mar-14       Apr-14       May-14       Jun-14       Jul-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicaid            13           27           61          124          125          164          181          225          202          142           54
Medicare             0            1            0            3            1            8            6            5            8            7            3
 Savings
 Program
Cash                 1           14           15           22           56           59           62           53           83           96           54
SNAP (Non            0           14           22           40           56           90           96          108          140          156           99
 Expedite
 )
SNAP                 0            3            4            9           21           28           33           40           49           48           14
 (Expedit
 e)
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total             14           56           98          189          238          321          345          391          482          449          224
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                        Table--4  Total number of applications disposed as duplicate before registration
                         Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that are disposed as duplicate applications before registration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Sep-13       Oct-13       Nov-13       Dec-13       Jan-14       Feb-14       Mar-14       Apr-14       May-14       Jun-14       Jul-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                       55          557        1,291        2,682        2,896        2,036        1,867        1,782        2,569          643          428
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Table--5  Total number of applications overdue by program as of July 15 2014 (May-July are primarily ineligibles Pending due to Court Order)
 Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of applications that completed application registration and a case was associated to the application and the program is overdue
                                                                                      as of July 11, 2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Program                     As of Feb. 28, 2014      As of Mar. 31, 2014      As of April 30, 2014      As of May 31, 2014      As of Jun. 30, 2014      As of Jul. 15, 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicaid                                                        258                      728                    1,793                    5,846                    8,010                    7,481
Medicare Savings Program                                         60                      112                      186                      424                      623                      656
Cash                                                             92                      235                      426                      889                    1,410                    1,454
SNAP (Non Expedite)                                             189                      580                    1,148                    2,580                    4,370                    4,479
SNAP (Expedite)                                                  47                      183                      397                      661                        0                        0
LIHEAP                                                        1,657                    2,794                    3,953                    5,139                      669                    1,355
                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total                                                       2,303                    4,632                    7,903                   15,539                   15,134                   15,480
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                     Table--7  Total eligible individuals by program
       Description: The summary of this table will provide the total number of eligible clients for a program for a given month (as of 7/15/2014).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Program      Sep-13       Oct-13       Nov-13       Dec-13       Jan-14       Feb-14       Mar-14       Apr-14       May-14       Jun-14       Jul-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicaid       189,171      209,139      400,930      425,505      568,456      589,143      614,606      615,814      616,304      631,381      638,669
Medicare        13,505       13,837       25,255       25,626       35,145       35,842       35,930       35,736       36,283       37,161       38,034
 Savings
 Program
Cash            16,665       18,665       27,798       28,834       38,915       39,423       38,540       38,338       38,082       39,213       37,787
SNAP           156,386      163,956      321,799      326,145      434,121      435,603      431,658      427,839      422,152      440,103      441,604
LIHEAP           5,049       23,782       20,102       19,122       21,647       13,597        8,799        5,914        3,721        4,176        1,438
8ISD2        8705,8660    8684,5260    8257,4110    8273,8790      85,7180        83660          850          800          800          800          800
 Clients0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Table--8  Total number of applications from YESNM as of July 15 2014
      Description: The summary of this table will provide the number of Self Service Applications registered for a given month (as of July 1, 2014)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Sep-13        Oct-13        Nov-13        Dec-13        Jan-14        Feb-14        Mar-14        Apr-14        May-14        Jun-14        Jul-14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         565         7,302         8,868        12,665        17,850        16,400        23,968        12,782        10,901        12,334         4,978
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






                                  [all]
