    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION

                                    AND THE

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

        JANUARY 12, 2016; MARCH 2, 2016; MAY 12; JUNE 22; JULY 6, 2016;
                   SEPTEMBER 13, 2016; AND NOVEMBER 16, 2016

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 114-3

                                   __________

                                     Part 4

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                    ____________

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    98-359 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2016

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                            COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                      K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman

    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas,             COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
        Vice Chairman                    Ranking Minority Member
    BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             JIM COSTA, California
    STEVE KING, Iowa                     TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
    GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania         JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
    AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                FILEMON VELA, Texas
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
    CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York      RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    DAN BENISHEK, Michigan               SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    JEFF DENHAM, California              ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             PETE AGUILAR, California
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
    JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana             GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
    MIKE BOST, Illinois
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
    DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
    TRENT KELLY, Mississippi

                                     ______

                        Scott C. Graves, Staff Director

                    Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director

                                     ______

                           Subcommittee on Nutrition

                      JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana, Chairwoman

    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts,
    GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania         Ranking Minority Member
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
    VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    DAN BENISHEK, Michigan               PETE AGUILAR, California
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

              Subcommittee on Nutrition--Tuesday, January 12, 2016

    Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
      Texas, opening statement.......................................   553
    DelBene, Hon. Suzan K., a Representative in Congress from
      Washington; submitted letter on behalf of Katharine Ryan,
      Policy and Research Manager, Food Lifeline.....................   599
    Hartzler, Hon. Vicky, a Representative in Congress from Missouri;
      submitted letter on behalf of Roger P. Allison, Vietnam Veteran
      & Executive Director, Missouri Rural Crisis Center.............   597
    Kirkpatrick, Hon. Ann, a Representative in Congress from Arizona;
      submitted letter on behalf of Angie B. Rodgers, President and
      Chief Executive Officer, Association of Arizona Food Banks.....   600
    Lujan Grisham, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from
      New Mexico; submitted letter on behalf of New Mexico
      Association of Food Banks......................................   598
    McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from
      Massachusetts, opening statement...............................   552
    Walorski, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from Indiana,
      opening statement..............................................   549
        Prepared statement...........................................   551

                                   Witnesses

    Leibman, J.D., Abby J., President and Chief Executive Officer,
      MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, Los Angeles, CA............   554
        Prepared statement...........................................   555
    Tebbens, Erika, Ballston Spa, NY.................................   558
        Prepared statement...........................................   560
    Faris, Vinsen, Executive Director, Meals-on-Wheels of Johnson and
      Ellis Counties in North Central Texas, Cleburne, TX............   562
        Prepared statement...........................................   563
    Schneidewind, J.D., Eric J., President-elect, AARP, Washington,
      D.C............................................................   568
        Prepared statement...........................................   570

                               Submitted Material

    Aster, Kristen, Manager, Hunger Advocacy Network, submitted
      statement......................................................   604
    Bivens, Rodney, Executive Director, Regional Food Bank of
      Oklahoma; Eileen Bradshaw, Executive Director, Community Food
      Bank of Eastern Oklahoma, submitted letter.....................   606
    Corina, Gina, Executive Director, Utahns Against Hunger,
      submitted letter...............................................   607
    Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank, submitted briefing.........   601
    Shiffer, Cristin Orr, Senior Advisor for Policy and Survey, Blue
      Star Families, submitted letter................................   608
    Woodings, Karen, Advocacy Manager, Central Pennsylvania Food
      Bank, submitted letter.........................................   609
    Zimet, Hon. Susan, Executive Director, Hunger Action Network of
      New York State, submitted statement............................   612
    Loaves and Fishes, St. Stephen and the Incarnation Episcopal
      Church, submitted letters on behalf of:
        Chamberlin, David, U.S. Army Veteran.........................   613
        Meier, Duane A., U.S. Army Korean War Veteran................   613
    Food Bank of Alaska, submitted statement.........................   614

                    Full Committee--Wednesday, March 2, 2016

    Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
      Texas, opening statement.......................................   615
        Prepared statement...........................................   616
    Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
      Minnesota, opening statement...................................   617

                                   Witnesses

    Muth, Stephanie, Deputy Executive Commissioner, Office of Social
      Services, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Austin,
      TX.............................................................   618
        Prepared statement...........................................   620
    Dean, Stacy, Vice President for Food Assistance Policy, Center on
      Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, D.C..................   623
        Prepared statement...........................................   624
    Cunnyngham, Karen, Senior Researcher, Mathematica Policy
      Research, Washington, D.C......................................   643
        Prepared statement...........................................   644

                               Submitted Material

    Wareing Evans, Tracy, Executive Director, American Public Human
      Services Association, submitted letter.........................   685

                     Full Committee--Thursday, May 12, 2016

    Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
      Texas, opening statement.......................................   689
        Prepared statement...........................................   691
    Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
      Minnesota, opening statement...................................   691

                                   Witnesses

    Hanna, Kathy, Senior Director Enterprise Payments and Store
      Support, The Kroger Co., Cincinnati, OH; on behalf of Food
      Marketing Institute............................................   693
        Prepared statement...........................................   694
    Wright, Jimmy, Owner, Wright's Market, Opelika, AL; on behalf of
      National Grocers Association...................................   705
        Prepared statement...........................................   706
    Beech, J.D., Douglas M., Legal Counsel and Director of Government
      Relations, Casey's General Stores, Inc., Ankeny, IA; on behalf
      of National Association of Convenience Stores..................   709
        Prepared statement...........................................   710
    Martincich, Carl, Vice President of Human Resources and
      Government Affairs, Love's Travel Stops and Country Stores,
      Oklahoma City, OK; on behalf of National Association of Truck
      Stop Operators (NATSO) Representing America's Travel Plazas and
      Truckstops.....................................................   714
        Prepared statement...........................................   715

                    Full Committee--Wednesday, June 22, 2016

    Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from North
      Carolina, prepared statement...................................   750
    Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
      Texas, opening statement.......................................   747
        Prepared statement...........................................   749
        Submitted statement on behalf of Pat Bebo, M.S., R.D.N., Ohio
          State University Extension; on behalf of SNAP-Ed Program
          Development Team, Land-grant University Cooperative
          Extension..................................................   803
    Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
      Minnesota, opening statement...................................   750

                                   Witnesses

    Wisdom, M.D., M.S., Kimberlydawn, Senior Vice President,
      Community Health & Equity and Chief Wellness and Diversity
      Officer, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI.................   751
        Prepared statement...........................................   753
        Submitted question...........................................   821
    Foerster, M.P.H., Susan B., Emeritus and Founding Member,
      Association of SNAP Nutrition Education Administrators,
      Carmichael, CA.................................................   757
        Prepared statement...........................................   759
        Supplementary material.......................................   809
    Sharma, Ph.D., R.D., L.D., Shreela V., Associate Professor,
      Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental
      Sciences, University of Texas; Co-Founder, Brighter Bites,
      Houston, TX....................................................   765
        Prepared statement...........................................   767
        Submitted question...........................................   822
    Britt-Rankin, Ph.D., Jo, Associate Dean/Program Director, Human
      Environmental Sciences Extension, University of Missouri,
      Columbia, MO; on behalf of Extension Committee on Organization
      and Policy.....................................................   770
        Prepared statement...........................................   771
        Submitted question...........................................   822

                               Submitted Material

    Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, submitted statement..........   818
    Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Education & Policy, submitted
      statement......................................................   820

                    Full Committee--Wednesday, July 6, 2016

    Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
      Texas, opening statement.......................................   825
        Prepared statement...........................................   826
    Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
      Minnesota, opening statement...................................   827

                                   Witnesses

    Shahin, Jessica, Associate Administrator for SNAP, Food and
      Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
      D.C............................................................   828
        Prepared statement...........................................   829
        Supplementary material.......................................   915
    Brown, Kay E., Director, Education, Workforce, and Income
      Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington,
      D.C............................................................   834
        Prepared statement...........................................   836
    Yost, Hon. Dave, Auditor, State of Ohio, Columbus, OH............   859
        Prepared statement...........................................   861
        Supplementary material.......................................   916

                               Submitted Material

    Wareing Evans, Tracy, Executive Director, American Public Human
      Services Association, submitted letter.........................   917

        Subcommittee on Nutrition--Tuesday, Tuesday, September 13, 2016

    McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from
      Massachusetts, opening statement...............................   923
    Walorski, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from Indiana,
      opening statement..............................................   921
        Prepared statement...........................................   922

                                   Witnesses

    Stillman, J.D., David, Assistant Secretary, Economic Services
      Administration, Washington Department of Social and Health
      Services, Olympia, WA..........................................   925
        Prepared statement...........................................   927
    Anderson, Jon, Deputy Director, Office of Family Independence,
      Georgia Division of Family and Children Services, Atlanta, GA..   934
        Prepared statement...........................................   936
    Weber, Peter, Founder, Fresno Bridge Academy, Fresno, CA;
      accompanied by Kim McCoy Wade, J.D., CalFresh Branch Chief,
      California Department of Social Services, Sacramento, CA.......   941
        Prepared statements:
            Weber, Peter.............................................   943
            McCoy Wade, J.D., Kim....................................   946

                  Full Committee--Wednesday, November 16, 2016

    Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
      Texas, opening statement.......................................   969
        Prepared statement...........................................   972
    McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from
      Massachusetts, opening statement...............................   974
    Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
      Minnesota, opening statement...................................   973
    Walorski, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from Indiana,
      opening statement..............................................   973

                                   Witnesses

    French, Eric, Director of Grocery, Amazon, Seattle, WA...........   976
        Prepared statement...........................................   977
        Submitted question...........................................  1065
    Lovelace, Gunnar, Founder and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Thrive
      Market, Marina del Ray, CA.....................................   979
        Prepared statement...........................................   981
    Beal, J.D., Michael J., Vice President, Secretary, and Chief
      Operating Officer, Balls Food Stores, Kansas City, KS; on
      behalf of National Grocers Association.........................   983
        Prepared statement...........................................   985
    Hess, Pamela, Executive Director, Arcadia Center for Sustainable
      Food & Agriculture, Alexandria, VA.............................  1025
        Prepared statement...........................................  1027
    Newport, M.S., R.D./L.D., Melinda R., Director, WIC and Child
      Nutrition Programs, Chickasaw Nation Department of Health, Ada,
      OK.............................................................  1031
        Prepared statement...........................................  1033

    .
                    SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
      (PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: ADDRESSING SPECIAL POPULATIONS)

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                                     Subcommittee on Nutrition,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jackie
    Walorski [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Walorski, Thompson, Gibbs,
    Crawford, Hartzler, Benishek, Davis, Yoho, Abraham, Conaway (ex
    officio), McGovern, Adams, Lujan Grisham, Plaskett, Ashford,
    DelBene, and Kirkpatrick.
        Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Jadi Chapman, Mary Nowak,
    Mollie Wilken, Scott C. Graves, Stephanie Addison, Faisal
    Siddiqui, John Konya, Lisa Shelton, Mary Knigge, Nicole Scott,
    and Carly Reedholm.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE WALORSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                         CONGRESS FROM INDIANA

        The Chairwoman. Welcome to today's Nutrition Subcommittee
    hearing. I want to thank everyone for taking the time to be
    here, and I want to thank, in particular, our witnesses for
    your participation. I also want to bring to your attention
    today's orange juice, compliments of Representative Ted Yoho of
    Florida.
        The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is
    by far the nation's largest Federal food assistance program.
    Last year, we began a review of the past, present, and future
    of SNAP, holding ten hearings at the full Committee and
    Subcommittee level. The review started from a broad
    perspective, but has narrowed in focus, examining such topics
    as the role of the charitable sector in fighting hunger, and
    the use of evidence-based solutions to measure outcomes.
        One of the last hearings of 2015, we examined the effect of
    hunger on children, how they can break the cycle of poverty. In
    our first hearing of 2016, we are picking up where we left off
    by looking at challenges facing special populations. Seniors,
    veterans, and active-duty military families each have unique
    needs. Speaking broadly, they are more vulnerable than many
    other populations to illnesses and physical and mental
    impairments that affect their ability to be fully independent.
        A simple trip to the grocery store may not be so simple if
    you have to maneuver a motorized wheelchair. Their ability to
    prepare food may be hampered by arthritis or an inability to
    stand for long periods of time. Climbing the economic ladder
    through work is not necessarily an available avenue to them.
    And yet under SNAP, they are treated under a one-size-fits-all
    model.
        Consider the makeup of the veteran population alone. As a
    Member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I am well aware of
    the range of ages and abilities under this one umbrella. You
    have seniors who fought in World War II and Korea, baby boomers
    who served in Vietnam, and those who more recently returned
    home from Afghanistan and Iraq, and everyone in between. Some
    are in perfect health. Others face one or multiple diseases, or
    physical, or mental conditions, such as Alzheimer's, arthritis,
    PTSD, or traumatic brain injury. And as more women answer the
    call to serve our country, that means women will make up a
    greater proportion of the veteran population. Given the
    diversity in the makeup of this population, one size cannot
    possibly fit all.
        As for active duty military, the USDA has estimated there
    are between 2,000 and 20,000 military families signed up for
    SNAP. However, a quirk in the eligibility calculation adds a
    needless complication to a family's decision whether or not to
    live on the base. The housing provided to a family living on a
    base does not count toward SNAP eligibility, which lowers their
    income and increases the benefit. On the other hand, the
    allowance that a family receives to live off a base does count
    toward eligibility, which raises their income and decreases the
    benefit. There are plenty of pros and cons that a military
    family must weigh as they decide whether or not to live on the
    base, but that shouldn't be needlessly clouded by whether or
    not they get a higher benefit from SNAP.
        Finally, the ranks of seniors are set to swell as the baby
    boomer generation enters retirement and health advancements
    help people live longer. Seniors have the lowest rate of SNAP
    participation of any demographic the program serves, but they
    also have the lowest rate of food insecurity. A low rate of
    food insecurity, however, doesn't give license to overlook the
    many factors that contribute to hunger among seniors, including
    a fixed income, illness, healthcare costs, specialized diets,
    and access to transportation.
        Before I close, I want to reiterate a theme that has been
    consistent throughout this entire review process. SNAP does not
    operate in a vacuum. SNAP alone will not end hunger, food
    insecurity, or poverty. SNAP is a piece of the larger puzzle.
    Everyone; the Federal Government, state governments, not-for-
    profits, the private-sector, researchers, and recipients
    themselves, have a role to play in lifting Americans out of
    poverty and up the economic ladder.
        Today we will hear from witnesses who can attest to
    challenges faced by each group, and potential ways to lower
    barriers. I thank each of our witnesses for being here and
    lending your expertise, and I look forward to hearing from you.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Walorski follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Hon. Jackie Walorski, a Representative in
                             Congress from Indiana
        Good morning, happy New Year, and welcome to today's Nutrition
    Subcommittee hearing. I want to thank everyone for taking the time to
    be here and I want to thank, in particular, our witnesses for their
    participation.
        The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is by far
    the nation's largest Federal food assistance program. Last year, we
    began a review of the past, present, and future of SNAP, holding ten
    hearings at the full Committee and Subcommittee level.
        The review started from a broad perspective, but has narrowed in
    focus, examining such topics as the role of the charitable sector in
    fighting hunger and the use of evidence-based solutions to measure
    outcomes.
        One of the last hearings of 2015 examined the effect of hunger on
    children and how they can break the cycle of poverty. In our first
    hearing of 2016, we are picking up where we left off by looking at
    challenges facing special populations.
        Seniors, veterans, and active-duty military families each have
    unique needs. Speaking broadly, they are more vulnerable than other
    populations to illnesses and physical and mental impairments that
    affect their ability to be fully independent.
        A simple trip to the grocery store may not be so simple if they
    have to maneuver a motorized wheelchair. Their ability to prepare food
    may be hampered by arthritis or an inability to stand for long periods
    of time. Climbing the economic ladder through work is not necessarily
    an avenue available to them.
        And yet, under SNAP, they're treated under a one-size-fits-all
    model.
        Consider the makeup of the veteran population alone. As a Member of
    the Veterans Affairs Committee, I'm well aware of the range of ages and
    abilities under this one umbrella. You have seniors who fought in World
    War II and Korea, baby boomers who served in Vietnam, those who more
    recently returned from Afghanistan and Iraq, and everyone in between.
    Some are in perfect health. Others face one or multiple diseases, or
    physical, or mental conditions, such as Alzheimer's, arthritis, PTSD,
    or traumatic brain injury. And as more women answer the call to serve
    our country, which means women will make up a greater proportion of the
    veteran population. Given the diversity in the makeup of this
    population, one size cannot possibly fit all.
        As for active duty military, the USDA has estimated that there are
    between 2,000 and 20,000 military families signed up for SNAP. However,
    a quirk in the eligibility calculation adds a needless complication to
    a family's decision whether or not to live on the base. The housing
    provided to a family living on a base does not count toward SNAP
    eligibility, which lowers their income and increases the benefit. On
    the other hand, the allowance that a family receives to live off a base
    does count toward eligibility, which raises their income and decreases
    the benefit. There are plenty of pros and cons that a military family
    must weigh as they decide whether or not to live on the base, but that
    shouldn't be needlessly clouded by whether or not they get a higher
    SNAP benefit.
        Finally, the ranks of seniors are set to swell as the baby boomer
    generation enters retirement and health advancements help people live
    longer. Seniors have the lowest rate of SNAP participation of any
    demographic the program serves, but they also have the lowest rate of
    food insecurity. A low rate of food insecurity, however, doesn't give
    license to overlook the many factors that can contribute to hunger
    among seniors, including a fixed income, illness, health care costs,
    specialized diets, and access to transportation.
        Before I close, I want to reiterate a theme that has been
    consistent throughout this review: SNAP does not operate in a vacuum.
    SNAP alone will not end hunger, food insecurity, or poverty. SNAP is a
    piece of the larger puzzle. Everyone--the Federal Government, state
    governments, nonprofits and the private-sector, researchers, and
    recipients themselves--has a role to play in lifting Americans out of
    poverty and up the economic ladder.
        Today we'll hear from witnesses who can attest to challenges faced
    by each group and potential ways to lower barriers. I thank each of you
    again for being here and lending your expertise and I look forward to
    hearing from you.

        The Chairwoman. I would now like to recognize Ranking
    Member McGovern for his opening statement.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE
                     IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS

        Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you very much. And welcome to the
    witnesses here today.
        This is the tenth hearing on SNAP, and some have wondered
    to what end. Well, Speaker Ryan and Republican presidential
    candidates gave us the answer last Saturday at their so-called
    forum on poverty in South Carolina, and I have to say that I am
    deeply troubled.
        We have known for a long time that Speaker Ryan supports
    block-granting SNAP. We have seen it year after year in his
    budgets. But if that is where all of this is going, that is bad
    news for poor people, and it is bad news for the vulnerable
    populations that our witnesses here today represent.
        Proposals like Speaker Ryan's to block-grant SNAP would
    decimate one of the key features of the program; that it can
    quickly respond to an economic downturn, that when the
    breadwinner in a household loses his or her job, a family can
    quickly access SNAP to keep food on the table until they get
    back on their feet.
        After this last recession, there is good data emerging
    showing that SNAP worked as it was supposed to, and expanded to
    help more families who needed it. And now that our economy is
    recovering, SNAP caseloads are declining and will continue to
    decline as the economy continues to get better. Simply put,
    SNAP is working.
        The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, on
    the other hand, which was converted into a block-grant in the
    1990s, barely responded at all to the recession. In fact, we
    have seen and are seeing states shift TANF funds away from core
    antipoverty purposes, and instead using these funds to plug
    holes in other areas of their state budgets, leaving vulnerable
    families out of luck.
        The reality is that block-granting SNAP would be
    catastrophic for the program. Funding would be capped and
    states would either have to reduce the benefit, which we all
    know from the many hearings that we have held is already
    inadequate, or they would have to cut people off. Either way,
    it would make hunger worse. And we know what happened with
    TANF, that states wouldn't have to use their SNAP block-grant
    funding to actually feed people. States could use that money
    for just about whatever they choose.
        So we shouldn't change the entitlement structure of SNAP.
    Block-granting SNAP is a bad idea, period. It would make hunger
    worse in this country, and I urge my colleagues to think twice
    about going down the dangerous road of block-grants.
        Now, in terms of today's hearing, I see that the title is;
    Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: Addressing Special
    Populations. Today's witnesses are among the most distinguished
    experts on senior and veteran hunger, but I think that we are
    only scratching the surface on special populations receiving
    SNAP. We should also be talking about the disabled, Native
    Americans, ex-offenders, and ABAWDs, able-bodied adults without
    dependents. These are all groups that have unique and often
    complicated circumstances, and we should be focused on making
    sure that they have access to adequate food benefits. I hope
    these populations will not be forgotten. But bottom line, if
    all of his is about block-granting SNAP, or as Jeb Bush said,
    ``eliminating the food stamp program,'' then I would just
    respectfully express to my Republican colleagues and the
    leadership here to be prepared for a fight. If we have any
    function in this Congress, it ought to be to making sure that
    the least among us are not forgotten or not invisible, and that
    we ought to be there to offer a helping hand.
        And again, I thank the witnesses, and look forward to
    hearing your testimony.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. I see the Chairman
    of the full Committee has joined us. The chair would now like
    to recognize Chairman Conaway for his statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
                         IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

        Mr. Conaway. Well, thanks, Chairwoman. I appreciate your
    holding this hearing.
        SNAP is a broad program. It is complicated. There are many
    facets to it. You can't brag on it or criticize it in a 30
    second sound-bite with any real granularity. And so unbundling
    the program to see its various parts and pieces, has great
    value, and that is kind of what we have been doing. And so
    bringing you here today to help us understand the impact that
    SNAP has on the populations that you are the most involved with
    is important for the Committee to help us understand. And this
    Committee has made no proposals in changing SNAP, in spite of
    the Ranking Member's comments to the contrary. And so we are
    trying to learn, trying to understand it, because I would be
    hard pressed to say any program in government is perfect and
    works perfectly for everyone. If it can't be improved, that is
    a pretty tall comment to make, and I don't think you can make
    that claim about anything. So helping us understand the direct
    impact that these programs have on alleviating issues that your
    populations face day in and day out, in addition to hunger, is
    appropriate and a good use of our time.
        So, Madam Chair, I appreciate you holding the hearing, and
    I yield back my time.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The chair would request that other Members submit their
    opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin
    their testimony, and to ensure there is ample time for
    questions. The chair would like to notify Members that they
    will be recognized for questioning in order of seniority for
    Members who were here at the start of the hearing. After that,
    Members will be recognized in order of arrival. I appreciate
    the Members' understanding.
        Witnesses are reminded to limit their oral statements to 5
    minutes. All of the written statements will be included in the
    record.
        I would like to welcome our witnesses to the table. Abby
    Leibman, President and CEO, MAZON, Los Angeles, California;
    Erika Tebbens, former military spouse; Vinsen Faris, Executive
    Director, Meals-on-Wheels of Johnson and Ellis Counties,
    Cleburne, Texas; Eric Schneidewind, President-elect, AARP,
    Lansing, Michigan.
        Ms. Leibman, please begin with your testimony when you are
    ready.

        STATEMENT OF ABBY J. LEIBMAN, J.D., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MAZON: A JEWISH RESPONSE TO HUNGER, LOS
                              ANGELES, CA

        Ms. Leibman. Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on
    Nutrition of the Committee on Agriculture, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before you today.
        I am Abby Leibman, President and CEO of MAZON: A Jewish
    Response to Hunger, a national nonprofit organization working
    to end hunger among people of all faiths and backgrounds in the
    United States and Israel.
        In response to learning that a startling number of our
    partners were providing food assistance to a growing number of
    military families and veterans, MAZON's Board of Directors made
    these issues a core priority for our education and advocacy.
    After an exhaustive search for accurate data from government
    and private sources, we learned the following: First, we found
    that literally hundreds of thousands of veterans are
    experiencing food insecurity, without receiving assistance from
    SNAP and other available benefit programs. Food insecurity
    among veterans, old and young, is nearly double the prevalence
    of food insecurity and very-low food security for the general
    U.S. population. Second, we also uncovered serious indications
    of food insecurity among currently-serving members of the
    military.
        The causes: low pay among lower-ranking enlistees, high
    unemployment among troop spouses, larger household sizes,
    challenges around activation and deployment, and unexpected
    financial emergencies.
        How do we know this? In addition to reports from our
    colleagues operating food pantries, MAZON learned from a source
    at the Pentagon that there are food pantries operating on or
    near every single Naval and Marine base in the United States.
        There can be no denying that food insecurity among military
    families is real and a painful reality. The experiences that
    Erika Tebbens will share with you today provide insight into
    just what those realities look like.
        There are three important actions that we urge Congress to
    take now to begin to address this growing problem. Demand more
    data. Despite strong anecdotal evidence, food insecurity among
    military families is not adequately documented or monitored by
    government agencies. What data we have been able to secure are
    often contradictory, out-of-date, or simply incomprehensible.
    No one really knows the military and veteran population numbers
    for government nutrition programs, let alone the estimates for
    the true level of need in these populations. Accurate data is
    essential if our nation is to better understand the scope of
    food insecurity among military families, and allow us to find
    the gaps and provide meaningful solutions. But make no mistake,
    if even one military family goes without adequate nutritious
    food, this nation is not meeting its responsibility to those
    who serve our country. But, of course, data alone is not the
    answer. You must remove policy barriers. Federal policies are
    actually denying struggling military families the resources
    they need to prevent food insecurity.
        Including the basic allowance for housing as income when
    determining SNAP eligibility is not only inconsistent with its
    treatment by other Federal programs, it has made thousands of
    struggling families ineligible for vital SNAP benefits. In
    order to survive, they must turn to food pantries on and off
    military bases.
        The BAH is not included as income for the purposes of
    calculating income taxes and eligibility for WIC and Head
    Start. The BAH should be consistently excluded as income for
    the purposes of determining eligibility for all nutrition
    assistance programs. We urge agency collaboration. For
    veterans, this is not only essential; it is becoming a matter
    of life and death. A growing number of veterans, particularly
    disabled veterans, are caught in the middle of bureaucratic
    delays and Federal agency silos, unaware of, or unable to,
    access nutrition assistance benefits, despite their obvious
    need. For veterans awaiting a disability determination, delays
    and multiple appeals are commonplace and last for almost a year
    in some communities. During this time, these men and women are
    unable to access nutrition assistance benefits and literally
    have nothing to eat.
        What can we do? We can start by ensuring that the
    government agencies charged with their care actually
    communicate with each other. VA social workers can use a simple
    two-question food insecurity screening tool, and refer those
    who screen positive to resources that support access to
    adequate healthy food, including SNAP. But perhaps the best way
    to prevent hunger among veterans is to protect and strengthen
    the SNAP Program. Right now, an estimated 60,000 veterans face
    the loss of SNAP benefits because of the expiration of the time
    limit waiver for ABAWDs. Cuts to SNAP hurt millions of
    Americans, including military families and veterans. This
    reality of limited data, unfair policy barriers, and
    bureaucratic silos comes at a time when the need among military
    families and veterans has never been greater. It is up to you
    to make the changes that will make this reality less impactful
    on their food insecurity. If not now, when? If not you, then
    who?
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Leibman follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Abby J. Leibman, J.D., President and Chief
     Executive Officer, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, Los Angeles, CA
        Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Nutrition and
    Committee on Agriculture, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    before you today.
        I am Abby Leibman, President and CEO at MAZON: A Jewish Response to
    Hunger, a national nonprofit organization working to end hunger among
    people of all faiths and backgrounds in the U.S. and Israel. Founded in
    1985, MAZON partners with literally hundreds of food banks, pantries,
    and direct service agencies that provide for people who are hungry and
    advocate for other ways to end hunger and its causes. MAZON's Board of
    Directors has made hunger among military families a core priority for
    our education and advocacy efforts. MAZON has a strong interest in the
    development of sensible and compassionate food and nutrition policies
    for military and veterans families. It is on this topic that I would
    like to speak with you today.
        MAZON believes that those who make great personal sacrifices in
    service to our country should not have to struggle to provide regular,
    nutritious meals to their families.
        We first became concerned about this issue more than 4 years ago
    when our colleagues from the emergency food network shared concerns
    about the up-tick in the number of military families and veterans
    turning to them for food assistance.
        Across the country, service members were (and still are) showing up
    at food pantries, sometimes in uniform, looking for help in feeding
    their families. While many emergency food providers have responded by
    developing specific and innovative programs to assist food-insecure
    military families, most of these organizations are strapped by
    increasing demands for services in general and have limited capacity to
    address this population.
        MAZON was alarmed by these reports about struggling military
    families and veterans and determined to investigate the issue. We
    conducted an exhaustive search for accurate data from the Department of
    Defense, USDA, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Congress, and direct
    service providers. We found that hunger is experienced too often among
    veterans, especially those veterans having difficulty transitioning
    back to civilian life and the workforce, waiting extended periods of
    time for disability determinations, or struggling to make ends meet
    when their disability pay is low.
        For currently serving members of the military, food insecurity is
    triggered by a number of different circumstances, including low pay
    among lower ranking enlistees, high unemployment among military
    spouses, larger household sizes, challenges around activation and
    deployment, and unexpected financial emergencies. There is clear
    evidence of widespread reliance on food pantries and distribution
    programs on and near military bases; in fact, MAZON learned from a
    source at the Pentagon that there are food pantries operating on or
    near every single Naval and Marine base in the United States! There can
    be no denying that food insecurity among military families is a real
    and painful reality and that government safety net programs are not
    adequately meeting the needs of those who serve our country.
        There are three important actions that we urge Congress to take now
    to begin to address this growing problem:
        Demand more data--Despite strong anecdotal evidence, food
    insecurity among military families is not adequately documented or
    monitored by government agencies, and indeed the problem has long been
    obscured and ignored. Data are often withheld from the public or are
    excessively difficult to obtain. What data we have been able to secure
    are often contradictory, out of date or simply incomprehensible.
        For example, USDA's most recent data indicates that approximately
    2,000 active duty service members participate in the SNAP program.
    However, we believe the scope of the need is significantly larger than
    that number reflects. This figure only counts families that self-report
    as active duty military and is derived using a methodology that experts
    have deemed skewed to underreport the number of military families for
    multiple reasons. Indeed, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's
    American Community Survey, 19,455 active duty service members were
    estimated to receive SNAP in 2014. Similar data for WIC is not even
    available. So no one really knows the military and veteran
    participation numbers for these programs, let alone estimates for the
    true level of need in these populations.
        Blue Star Family's Military Family Lifestyle Survey offers a
    glimpse of the economic hardship and food insecurity challenges for
    active duty families, as well as some of the barriers that make it more
    difficult for them to get needed assistance. The 2015 survey reported
    more than 7% of responding active duty military and spouses faced food
    insecurity within the past year. Nearly 6% of respondents sought
    emergency food assistance through a food bank, pantry, or charitable
    organization, while only 2.4% participated in SNAP.
        A more complete understanding of the scope and characteristics of
    the growing problem of food insecurity among military families and
    veterans will enable DOD, USDA, the VA and Congress to better identify
    gaps in Federal food program usage and provide a meaningful response to
    the unique challenges confronting these vulnerable households.
        MAZON has sought out additional data to help in this effort by
    working with colleagues in the House Armed Services Committee to
    request a [Government] Accountability Office report to explore these
    issues. Having the House Agriculture Committee weigh in on the need for
    better government data and accountability, including guidance for the
    GAO report, will give greater urgency to the call for an effective
    response to this issue.
        However, I must underscore here that in our view, if even one
    military family goes without adequate and nutritious food, this nation
    is not meeting its responsibility to those who serve our country! Upon
    Senate passage of the FY16 NDAA bill, the Chairman of the House Armed
    Services Committee stated, ``It is critical for our troops to know that
    we can put politics aside to support them, their families, and their
    mission to protect our country.'' Sadly, when the problem of food
    insecurity among military families continues to go unscrutinized and
    unaddressed, such self-congratulatory rhetoric rings hollow.
        But data alone is clearly not the answer.
        Remove policy barriers now--Federal policies are denying currently
    serving military families who are struggling the resources they need to
    help keep them from experiencing food insecurity.
        Many lower ranking service members--especially those with multiple
    dependents who live off base or in privatized housing--are
    systematically made ineligible for SNAP because their housing allowance
    is counted as income. For these families, the best option available to
    them is to frequent food pantries on and off military bases.
        The Basic Allowance for Housing is excluded as income for the
    purposes of calculating income taxes and eligibility for some Federal
    programs, including WIC and Head Start. By the same token, we believe
    that the BAH should be consistently excluded as income for the purposes
    of determining eligibility for all nutrition assistance programs. The
    intent of the BAH is to provide housing for uniformed service members
    with minimal military overhead costs by relying on the civilian housing
    market. Yet treating the BAH benefit as income for determining
    eligibility for SNAP puts some military families at an unfair
    disadvantage and disqualifies them from receiving vital food
    assistance.
        MAZON strongly urges an immediate fix to this problem in a way that
    does not come at the expense of access for others or any funding for
    nutrition assistance programs. This is a simple and common sense policy
    change that should be immediately undertaken because it is the right
    thing to do and would rectify a past slight to military families.
    Though Members of Congress and Pentagon leaders recently expressed
    worry that current funding levels leave our armed forces at ``the lower
    ragged edge of readiness,'' similar concern has been notably absent for
    the struggling military families who honorably serve our country
    despite living on their own personal ``ragged edge.''
        MAZON has been working for several years with anti-hunger
    advocates, military service organizations, food banks and pantries, and
    champions on Capitol Hill to eliminate this unnecessary and harmful
    policy barrier. Legislation was introduced in 2015 in both the House
    and Senate that proposed excluding the BAH as income for the
    determination of nutrition assistance benefits. Sadly, these proposals
    were swiftly blocked and the problem of food insecurity for currently
    serving families remains.
        Surely we owe it to our military families to remove unfair barriers
    to access for needed benefits. Making this policy correction supports
    the national goal of mission readiness for our armed forces and also
    promotes fiscal responsibility as these families--particularly the
    children--experience improved health outcomes from higher levels of
    food security and better nutrition, which in turn yield reductions in
    long-term health care costs. The recent report about SNAP by the White
    House Council of Economic Advisers vividly demonstrates the important
    role of SNAP in reducing both poverty and food insecurity and documents
    the significant long-term impacts of SNAP for children in the areas of
    health, education, and economic self-sufficiency.
        Urge agency collaboration--A growing number of veterans--and
    particularly disabled veterans--are getting caught in the middle of
    bureaucratic delays and Federal agency silos, unaware of or unable to
    access nutrition assistance benefits despite their obvious need.
        Unacceptable portions of the veteran community, who used to get
    ``three squares a day'' as soldiers, now do not know where their next
    meal will come from. It is estimated that over 300,000 elderly veterans
    are food-insecure and confront the same barriers faced by all seniors
    trying to access benefits--stigma, misinformation about potential
    eligibility, and a daunting application process. More recent vets face
    serious challenges as well. According to a 2012 University of Minnesota
    study of soldiers returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, one
    in four veterans report being food-insecure (27%), and 12% of those
    vets were classified as having very-low food security. These rates are
    nearly double the prevalence of food insecurity and very-low food
    security for the general U.S. population. In addition, we know that
    many veterans return from combat with disabilities that make it more
    difficult to maintain gainful employment and provide food for
    themselves and their families. Households with a disabled veteran are
    nearly twice as likely to be food-insecure as households that do not
    have someone with a disability. Ensuring that all veterans have access
    to adequate and nutritious food is critical, and providing such access
    to disabled veterans is the least this nation owes to its returning and
    injured soldiers.
        Unfortunately, this is a promise that is not always kept. Veterans
    who are awaiting a disability determination face enormous challenges in
    making claims through the VA's daunting claims process, where delays
    and multiple appeals are commonplace. During this waiting period, many
    veterans are unable, or limited in their ability, to access nutrition
    assistance benefits.
        For veterans applying for assistance or seeking medical care
    through VA facilities, USDA and the VA must do more to help these
    veterans navigate the application process and connect them to benefits
    and resources available to help them meet their basic needs. USDA could
    help the VA serve as a conduit for outreach and education about SNAP
    and proactively link vets to nutrition assistance through eligibility
    screenings and application assistance. Better coordination between USDA
    and the VA would go a long way in connecting disabled, aging, and
    struggling veterans with available nutrition assistance, contributing
    to better long-term health outcomes, lowering health care costs, and
    reducing unnecessarily high rates of poverty and homelessness in this
    population.
        A simple but highly effective intervention would involve VA social
    workers and health care professionals adopting as standard practice the
    utilization of a two-question food insecurity screening tool and then
    referring those who screen positive to resources that support access to
    adequate, healthy food, including SNAP. The recent adoption of a
    similar policy by the American Academy of Pediatrics provides an
    exciting precedent for an effective intervention that promises smart
    and cost-effective ways to help ensure that veterans don't come home to
    hunger.
        Perhaps the best way to prevent hunger among veterans is to protect
    and strengthen the SNAP program. It has been repeatedly demonstrated
    that SNAP effectively reduces food insecurity and poverty rates,
    contributes to savings in long-term health care costs, and positively
    impacts long-term health, education, and economic self-sufficiency
    outcomes. And yet, recent attempts to cut SNAP--including a proposal
    during the last farm bill process that put 170,000 veterans' benefits
    at risk--only exacerbate the problem of veteran hunger. And right now,
    an estimated 60,000 veterans face the loss of SNAP benefits because of
    the expiration of the time limit waiver for ABAWDs. Cuts to SNAP, in
    addition to causing harmful impacts on American families struggling to
    get by and get back on their feet, also hurt military families and
    veterans who receive critical assistance from the program.
    Conclusion
        The unfortunate reality of what I have outlined today--of limited
    data, unfair policy barriers, and bureaucratic silos--comes at a time
    when the need among military families and veterans has never been
    greater.
        There has been a sad and ineffective response to military hunger
    issues in the past. When media stories about military families on SNAP
    circulated in the late 1990s, Congress was concerned about the optics
    of members of our military receiving food stamps. In order to get these
    families off of SNAP, Congress in 2000 created a parallel program--the
    Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA)--administered by the
    Department of Defense with an explicitly stated goal of removing
    military families from the SNAP rolls. This little-known and poorly
    administered DOD program did not work either to get military families
    off of SNAP, or more importantly, to adequately address the challenges
    of food insecurity that are faced by some military families. It was
    such a failure, in fact, that Congress recently voted in the 2016 NDAA
    bill to sunset the failed FSSA program domestically at the end of 2016.
    However, without any additional action taken, Congress has effectively
    abandoned the thousands of struggling military families who fall
    through the cracks of SNAP eligibility and turn instead to the
    emergency food system out of desperation. These families deserve more
    than failed policies and government indifference.
        Therefore MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger strongly urges
    Congress to take action now to effectively address the problems of
    military and veteran food insecurity that I have shared with you and
    that have been tragically ignored for far too long. The bipartisan-
    appointed National Commission on Hunger, in its final report released
    just last week, made recommendations to address military food
    insecurity consistent with what I have outlined for you today. I hope
    that my testimony and the personal reflections shared by Erika Tebbens
    provide the necessary justification for expeditious Congressional
    action.
        The principle of leaving no one behind is deeply embedded in the
    ethos of the U.S. military. If Congress continues to ignore the problem
    of hunger among service members and veterans, we are surely leaving
    them behind and in the enemy hands of hunger and poverty.
        MAZON welcomes the opportunity to work with you to create lasting
    and meaningful change to meet the needs of our military and veteran
    families. Thank you.

        The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Leibman.
        Ms. Tebbens, please proceed with your testimony.

              STATEMENT OF ERIKA TEBBENS, BALLSTON SPA, NY

        Ms. Tebbens. I would like to begin by thanking all of you
    for taking the time to hear my testimony, and for MAZON for
    working on this important issue and giving me this opportunity.
    Being able to speak on behalf of active duty military families
    who may be too afraid to speak out on this matter is a great
    honor, and I hope my story can help them.
        In 2003, my ex-husband, Colin, was assigned to his first
    Naval duty station as a culinary specialist at the Bremerton
    Naval Hospital in Washington. I was leaving my job as a high
    school teacher and a Master's Degree program, just two courses
    short of graduating. The job prospects in our new town were
    bleak, and I was constantly told that I was over qualified in
    interviews. I finally managed to secure employment in two
    positions; as a bank teller making $9 an hour, and as a baker
    at a diner making $10 an hour. I was working 35 to 40 hours a
    week, but still only making \1/2\ of my previous salary.
        Then in March 2004, I found out I was pregnant. A coworker
    mentioned the WIC Program to me. I had never heard of it, and I
    thought it absurd a military family would qualify for any type
    of assistance, especially because we weren't the lowest rank of
    enlisted personnel. Colin was an E4, which is quite good for
    someone with less than 2 years of service. When they told us
    our family qualified, they also told us that many military
    families are eligible but don't realize it. How could this be?
    I was quite embarrassed, but had to accept both the help and
    the disapproving glares when handing over my vouchers at the
    grocery store.
        All this time, I was continuing to apply for a job with
    better pay but continued to be deemed over qualified, and it
    didn't help that I was also very visibly pregnant.
        Our son, Jack, was born in November 2004. He had to be
    delivered via caesarian section, meaning I was not allowed to
    go back to work for 6 weeks. When I was medically cleared for
    work, I could only take shifts on Saturdays, when Colin could
    watch Jack. We had no family locally and could not afford
    childcare. This is when things got incredibly difficult. We
    went to the Navy Marine Corps Relief Society for advice, and
    their only recommendation was that we apply for a low interest
    credit card called Military Star. Taking on more debt did not
    seem like a reasonable solution.
        With a lot of shame and reluctance, I applied for SNAP
    benefits. When we were denied, I was devastated and confused. I
    felt like we were doing everything right but we were still
    stuck. I also didn't understand why we would qualify for one
    government food program but not another. My husband and I
    shared one used car, and had no cable or other amenities. We
    kept a vegetarian diet because we couldn't afford to buy meat.
    I exclusively breast-fed Jack until he was 6 months old too,
    which saved us the expense of formula. I was also forced to
    defer my student loan payments, but that only prolonged the
    debt.
        The stress that this financial burden caused was profound
    and constant, and was amplified by the stress of caring for a
    newborn. The problem was our basic allowance for housing, or
    BAH. In the SNAP application, BAH was being included as income,
    despite the fact that the WIC application specifically excludes
    it, and both programs fall under the USDA. When we moved there
    was no military housing available to us, so we were forced to
    rent an apartment. We intentionally chose an apartment where
    our BAH would cover both the rent and the utilities. BAH is
    calculated by the local cost of living, and varies greatly
    across duty stations. Since we lived in a high cost of living
    area, this inflated our gross income substantially. This is why
    we were denied essential SNAP benefits, and why many military
    families are also denied. On paper, it appears these families
    are economically stable, when in reality they might not earn
    enough to support their children.
        I feel it is an oversight as part of the application
    process because I could not imagine that legislators would ever
    consciously want members of the military and their families to
    be food-insecure.
        Thankfully, I found a great full-time job when Jack was 18
    months old, and we were able to leave the WIC Program. We
    haven't needed it since. We are lucky, but that doesn't change
    the fear, stress, and panic we felt during the first 18 months
    of my son's life.
        Being in a military family is challenging. We have to make
    so many sacrifices. Missed time with loved ones, not having a
    constant place to call home, job security for dependents, and
    so much more. One thing military families should never have to
    worry about is having enough food.
        I sincerely hope you will consider revisions to SNAP for
    military families because they deserve to be taken care of by
    the country they serve.
        Thank you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Tebbens follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Erika Tebbens, Ballston Spa, NY
    January 7, 2015

      Subcommittee on Nutrition,
      Committee on Agriculture,
      U.S. House of Representatives,
      Washington, D.C.

        To the Honorable Members of the Nutrition Subcommittee:

        When my son Jack was born, I was married to a Culinary Specialist
    at the Bremerton Naval Hospital in Washington. He was an E4, after
    enlisting as an E3, and we were proud of his solid ranking. I have a
    bachelor's degree, and before we moved I had nearly completed a
    Master's Degree in Secondary Education.
        I left a $30,000/year position as a teacher when we were assigned
    to the Kitsap Peninsula. The job prospects in our new town were bleak,
    and I was constantly told I was ``overqualified'' in interviews. I
    finally managed to secure only part-time employment in two positions--
    as a bank teller and as a baker at a diner. I was working 35-40 hours a
    week but making \1/2\ my previous salary.
        When we found out I was pregnant we were barely making ends meet.
    Thankfully we were good cooks with plenty of knowledge about healthy
    eating. Even while sticking to affordable staples like beans and rice
    or vegetable soups, our grocery bill was awfully high. I struggled with
    having to choose between healthy, nutritious food and processed, cheap
    food.
        A coworker happened to mention the WIC program to me. I had never
    heard of it before. I was certain as a military family we wouldn't
    qualify, but I made an appointment at our local WIC office anyway. The
    office was in a private building in our town, not on the base. That
    meeting was quite enlightening. I learned that it's quite common for
    civilian OBGYNs to give information about the program to pregnant
    women. But I never heard it mentioned once in all my visits to the
    military hospital.
        The pre-screening process for the WIC program was fast and simple,
    and the women working there were knowledgeable and supportive. To my
    surprise, we qualified, and I learned that this is true as well for
    many military families.
        I used the WIC benefits while pregnant and continued to search for
    a better paying job, but just kept hearing that I was
    ``overqualified.'' I also suspect no one was interested in hiring a
    woman who was very visibly pregnant.
        Our son Jack was born in November 2004. He had to be delivered via
    caesarean section, meaning I was not allowed to work for 6 weeks. Once
    I was medically cleared to return to work, I could only work shifts on
    Saturdays, when my husband wasn't working. There was simply no way we
    could afford childcare, and, like so many military families, we had no
    local support system.
        Our financial challenges with an infant mounted, and I ran out of
    solutions. I reluctantly applied for SNAP benefits and was denied. I
    felt confused, scared, and ultimately dumbfounded. How could we qualify
    for one government food assistance program, but not another? Why didn't
    we qualify for SNAP when we were struggling to put food on the table
    for our family?
        Although both the WIC and SNAP programs fall under the USDA, the
    WIC application specifically excludes additional military allowances,
    such as the housing allowance, as part of your monthly income. The SNAP
    program, in contrast, does require counting our Basic Allowance for
    Housing (BAH) as income when applying.
        Most people don't realize military families often acquire housing
    in a different way than their civilian counterparts. On the whole, our
    military subsidizes housing expenses for active-duty military families,
    whether you live on-base or off. If you reside in off-base or
    privatized military housing, the subsidy is determined by the cost of
    living in your area. But including the BAH as part of determining
    eligibility for government programs, which only happens if you live off
    base or in privatized housing, artificially inflates a family's gross
    income. So that's what happened to us.
        We were rejected because our housing allowance was included as part
    of our income, which made it seem like we were making more money than
    we were. I've since learned that this is a common reason why military
    families are denied access to SNAP benefits.
        We were left wondering how we were going to survive even while my
    husband went to work serving his country.
        After being denied for SNAP, I didn't know what else to do. There
    weren't any other options for our family. When we moved, there was a
    wait list for on-base military housing so we chose an apartment that
    was under our housing allowance in an attempt to make ends meet. We
    also shared one used car, and lived without cable or other amenities in
    an attempt to get by.
        We were making payments on my graduate school loans, which also
    weren't considered in benefit eligibility. As a responsible adult, I
    pay my bills. I wasn't going to just stop paying. For some time I had
    them deferred, but that was only a temporary solution.
        I breast-fed Jack exclusively until he was 6 months old, but the
    costs of having a child piled up. Diapers, wipes, and other necessities
    were a constant strain on our budget. We shopped the commissary,
    because it was cheaper, but our food bills were still more than we
    could afford. I remember putting groceries on the credit cards more
    times than I could count. There are few things more disheartening than
    worrying about where your next meal is going to come from.
        My life--and my son's life--are much better now. All debts from
    that time have been paid, and we are food-secure and living
    comfortably. I was able to leave the WIC program after I went back to
    work full-time when Jack was about 18 months old. We can now afford to
    give generously to various charities and donate to our local food
    pantries. For 4 years, I managed a local farm that accepted WIC and
    SNAP benefits. I lived the experience of stretching each dime, so when
    people shopped with my farm, I would go to great lengths to help them
    make the most of the meager benefits.
        Being in a military family is challenging in ways most people can
    never imagine. You make so many sacrifices: missed time with loved
    ones; not having a constant place to call ``home;'' job security for
    dependents; and so much more. I don't ever want another military family
    to worry about food the way we did.
        If we had been of a lower rank, I honestly don't know how we would
    have survived. No military family should have to experience the fear
    and shame of being food-insecure, but we should also be giving them the
    resources and information to get help.
        I hope that these reflections from my personal experiences, and the
    other stories that follow collected by MAZON: A Jewish Response to
    Hunger,* help you to better understand the particular challenges of
    food insecurity faced by too many of our military families.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * Editor's note: the referenced ``collection of stories'' was not
    included with the submitted testimony.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Sincerely,
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Erika Tebbens.

        The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Tebbens.
        Mr. Faris, please proceed.

    STATEMENT OF VINSEN FARIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MEALS-ON-WHEELS
    OF JOHNSON AND ELLIS COUNTIES IN NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS, CLEBURNE,
                                   TX

        Mr. Faris. Madam Chair, distinguished Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here with you
    today.
        In addition to leading Meals-on-Wheels of Johnson and Ellis
    Counties, I also have the honor of serving as the immediate
    past Board Chair of Meals-on-Wheels America. All told, there
    are more than 5,000 Meals-on-Wheels senior nutrition programs
    throughout our country, all unified in a mission to support our
    communities' most vulnerable seniors to live safely,
    healthfully, and independently in their own homes. Today we are
    challenged like never before in addressing the growing needs of
    a rapidly aging population that is increasingly struggling with
    hunger, and paying for basic living needs like rent, utilities,
    and prescriptions.
        Take Emily, for example, whose story is similar to the
    thousands of seniors in your states and districts who are
    significantly at risk of hunger and isolation. Emily is 92, a
    retired nurse who worked for 40+ years, and receives about $850
    a month in Social Security benefits. She suffers from severe
    osteoporosis and is physically unable to leave her home to go
    to a grocery store or stand to cook and prepare her own meals.
    Emily relies on a Meals-on-Wheels volunteer to bring her a
    nourishing hot meal every day. This friendly visit and personal
    connection is the only human contact Emily may regularly have.
        Like most Meals-on-Wheels clients, the nutritious meals
    Emily receives help her to maintain her independence, to live
    in her own home, and to avoid unnecessary trips to the
    hospital. Meals-on-Wheels offers her a lifeline that is a much-
    preferred, economical, and commonsense alternative to other
    long-term care options.
        As you know, the consequences of hunger and food insecurity
    are both socially and economically profound. For seniors, even
    a slight reduction in nutritional intake can exacerbate
    existing health conditions, accelerate physical impairment,
    impede recovery from illness, injury, or surgery, and increase
    the risk of chronic disease. Today, one in six seniors
    struggles with hunger, and those experiencing very-low food
    security has increased 63 percent between the start of the
    recession in 2007 and 2013. Findings from a recent study showed
    that seniors on Meals-on-Wheals' waiting list are among our
    nation's most at-risk and vulnerable populations. Specifically,
    these seniors are more likely to report poorer health, higher
    rates of anxiety and depression, and fall more frequently.
    Eighty-seven percent of these at-risk seniors required
    assistance with grocery shopping.
        It is imperative that proven and effective programs
    designed to meet the nutritional and social needs of special
    populations such as seniors like Emily be further strengthened.
    Any legislative and policy changes should enhance nutritional
    access and assure individual safety, security, health, and
    well-being. We can either invest a modest amount in proper
    nutrition for our seniors now, or spend significantly more on
    the adverse consequences that will increase healthcare costs
    later.
        Accordingly, we urge consideration of the following: First,
    protect and support SNAP. On average, seniors on SNAP receive
    only $129 a month. However, it can mean the difference between
    having to choose between meals or prescriptions. SNAP must be
    supported and recognized as a critical pillar to reducing
    senior hunger.
        Second, reauthorize and support the Older Americans Act.
    The Act has been the primary piece of Federal legislation
    supporting social and nutrition services for older Americans
    since 1965. Despite the Act's longstanding bipartisan,
    bicameral support, it has been unauthorized since 2011, and
    remains woefully under-funded.
        Third, modify Medicare and Medicaid to meet the nutritional
    needs of our most vulnerable. It is notable that a senior can
    receive Meals-on-Wheels for an entire year for about the same
    cost of 1 day in the hospital, or 1 week in a nursing home.
    Accordingly, we recommend that Medicare and Medicaid plans
    include coverage for home-delivered meals prepared and
    delivered by private, nonprofits, with physician
    recommendations.
        The time to act is now, especially given the magnitude of
    the senior hunger problem, coupled with our rapidly aging
    population. The good news is that the infrastructure already
    exists to meet these challenges through successful programs
    administered by USDA and HHS. Working together to ensure that
    no senior in need struggles with hunger and isolation is an
    investment in our nation's fiscal future, and it is also a
    preventative prescription for significantly reducing Medicare
    and Medicaid expenses. This is an issue that is not only within
    our reach to solve, but it is also the right thing to do for
    all of the Emilys in our communities.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Faris follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Vinsen Faris, Executive Director, Meals-on-Wheels
       of Johnson and Ellis Counties in North Central Texas, Cleburne, TX
        Chairman Conaway, Chairwoman Walorski, Ranking Member Peterson,
    Ranking Member McGovern and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee--
    good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
    at this important hearing. I am Vinsen Faris, Executive Director of
    Meals-on-Wheels of Johnson and Ellis Counties, located immediately
    south of Dallas--Fort Worth in Cleburne, Texas.
        As well as having the privileged responsibility of delivering more
    than 1,200 nutritious meals to needy homebound seniors in our 1,700+
    mile\2\ area each day, I also have the honor of serving as the
    Immediate Past Chair of the Board of Meals-on-Wheels America. Meals-on-
    Wheels America is the oldest and largest national organization
    comprised of and representing community-based senior nutrition programs
    that are dedicated to addressing senior hunger and isolation in every
    state. By providing leadership, research, education and training,
    grants, and advocacy support, Meals-on-Wheels America helps to empower
    community programs, just like Meals-on-Wheels of Johnson and Ellis
    Counties, to improve the health and quality of life of the seniors they
    serve.
        All told, there are more than 5,000 Meals-on-Wheels programs--both
    congregate and home-delivered--in communities across the country that
    are delivering vital social and nutrition services to seniors 60 years
    of age or older. These programs are big and small, rural, suburban and
    urban, and serve nutritious meals in both the home, where one's
    mobility is limited, and/or in congregate settings, such as senior
    centers; delivering a total of roughly one million meals daily.\1\
    While each program is certainly unique in regard to its daily
    operations, we are unified in our mission to support our communities'
    most vulnerable seniors to live safely, healthfully and independently
    in their own homes for as long as they wish. We also share the same
    challenges in addressing the growing needs of a rapidly aging
    population that is increasingly struggling with hunger and paying for
    basic living needs, like rent, utilities and prescriptions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Administration for Community Living. Data Source: AGID State
    Profiles. Retrieved from www.agid.acl.gov.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Take Emily, for example, one of the over 2,800 clients we serve in
    Johnson and Ellis Counties, whose story is similar to the thousands of
    seniors in your states and districts who are significantly at risk of
    hunger and isolation and rely on Meals-on-Wheels to be able to live at
    home. Emily is 92, a retired nurse who worked for 40 years in Johnson
    County, raised her family there, and brings in about $850.00 a month in
    Social Security benefits. She suffers from severe osteoporosis and is
    physically unable to leave her home to go to a grocery store to
    purchase food or to cook or prepare her own meals. Instead, she relies
    on a Meals-on-Wheels volunteer to bring her a nourishing hot meal every
    day--her primary source of food. This friendly visit and personal
    connection is the only human contact Emily will have each day.
        Like most Meals-on-Wheels clients, the nutritious meals Emily
    receives help her to maintain her independence, to live in her own
    home, which she prefers, and to avoid unnecessary trips to the hospital
    or premature placement in a nursing home, often paid for through
    Medicare and/or Medicaid. According to the 2013 National Survey of
    Older Americans Act Participants, 92% of Meals-on-Wheels recipients
    reported that the meals enabled them to continue living at home, and
    83% said that eating the meals improved their health.\2\ For Emily,
    Meals-on-Wheels offers a lifeline that is a much preferred, economical
    and common sense alternative to other long-term care options.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Administration for Community Living. Data Source: AGID National
    Survey of OAA Participants. Retrieved from www.agid.acl.gov.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At no other time in our history, however, has the issue of senior
    hunger been at a more critical level. Regardless of what statistic you
    see, it is undeniable that the problem is grave, growing and expensive.
    Today, 9.6 million seniors \3\--or one in six--may not know from where
    their next meal will come. All the more concerning to this Subcommittee
    is the fact that the number of seniors 60+ experiencing ``very-low food
    security''--or ``hunger,'' as the National Commission on Hunger just
    expressed in their report released last week--has increased 63% between
    the start of the recession in 2007 to 2013.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Ziliak, J., & Gunderson, C. (2015, April). The State of Senior
    Hunger in America 2013: An Annual Report. Retrieved from www.nfesh.org/
    wp-content/uploads/2015/04/State-of-Senior-Hunger-in-America-2013.pdf.
        \4\ Ziliak, J., & Gunderson, C. (2015, April). Supplement--The
    State of Senior Hunger in America 2013: An Annual Report. Retrieved
    from www.nfesh.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/NFESH_2015_Report-
    _Supplement_032515.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As you know, the consequences of hunger and food insecurity are
    both socially and economically profound. For seniors, however, even a
    slight reduction in nutritional intake can exacerbate existing health
    conditions, accelerate physical impairment, impede recovery from
    illness, injury and surgery, and increase the risk of chronic
    disease(s). The Causes, Consequences, and Future of Senior Hunger in
    America (http://www.mowaa.org/document.doc?id=13)--the first ever
    assessment of the state of senior hunger in America released in 2008--
    found that a senior facing the threat of hunger has the same chance of
    much more severe activities of daily living (ADL) limitations as
    someone 14 years older.\5\ This means there is a large disparity
    between a senior's actual chronological age and his or her ``physical''
    age, such that a 67 year old senior struggling with hunger is likely to
    have the ADL limitations of an 81 year old.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Ziliak, J., & Gunderson, C. (2008, March). The Causes,
    Consequences, and Future of Senior Hunger in America. Retrieved from
    www.mowaa.org/document.doc?id=13.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Furthermore, findings from a 2015 study entitled More Than a Meal
    (http://www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/theissue/facts-resources/more-
    than-a-meal)--commissioned by Meals-on-Wheels America, underwritten by
    AARP Foundation and conducted by Brown University--showed that seniors
    on Meals-on-Wheels waiting lists are among our nation's most at-risk
    populations when compared to a national representative sample of aging
    Americans. Specifically, the seniors included in the study were
    significantly more likely to:

       Report poorer self-rated health (71% vs. 26%).

       Screen positive for depression (28% vs. 14%) and anxiety
            (31% vs. 16%).

       Report recent falls (27% vs. 10%) and fear of falling that
            limited their ability to stay active (79% vs. 42%).

       Require assistance with shopping for groceries (87% vs. 23%)
            and preparing food (69% vs. 20%).

       Have health and/or safety hazards both inside and outside
            the home (i.e., higher rates of tripping hazards, (24% vs.
            10%), and home construction hazards, (13% vs. 7%).\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Thomas, K., & Dosa, D. (2015, March). More Than a Meal.
    Retrieved from: www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/MTAM.

        In light of the immense vulnerability and array of health and
    mobility challenges our nation's seniors face, coupled with the high-
    cost, high-risk factors they pose to our healthcare system, it is
    imperative that proven and effective programs designed to meet their
    nutritional and social needs are further strengthened. And at the same
    time, it is important to recognize that there is not a one-size-fits-
    all solution to the problem of senior hunger. The fact is that there is
    a wide continuum of need and a variety of federally supported nutrition
    programs targeted to meet vulnerable populations along that spectrum
    and promote health and well-being. For those seniors who are most
    mobile and may struggle with hunger primarily as a result of limited
    income and access to affordable foods, the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP) may serve as the best intervention. In
    contrast, for those seniors who are hungry as a result of mobility and
    health challenges and are physically unable to cook or prepare meals,
    Meals-on-Wheels may serve as the best intervention. In other cases, it
    may be a combination of Federal and local programs working together to
    address hunger in the community. Illustrated below is a chart that
    Meals-on-Wheels America and Feeding America created jointly to showcase
    the senior hunger continuum and the programs that exist to help support
    them.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Feeding America & Meals-on-Wheels America. (2015, March).
    Senior Hunger: A National Crisis and a Collaborative Response.
    Retrieved from: http://www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/docs/default-
    source/membership/resources-tools/advocacy/
    fa_mowa_seniorhunger.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

        As Congress considers modifications to the Federal nutrition safety
    net to support the vulnerable populations we are discussing today, it
    is imperative that their unique nutritional and social needs be at the
    forefront of the process. Any legislative and policy changes should not
    only enhance nutritional access, but should also assure individual
    safety, security and health and well-being today and into the future.
    We can either invest a modest amount in proper nutrition for our
    seniors now, or spend significantly more on the adverse consequences
    that will develop in healthcare costs later.
        We must continue to build on the progress being made to ensure that
    seniors eligible for SNAP are able to access and utilize the support
    available to maintain their health and quality of life. We must also
    ensure that proposals, such as the SNAP grocery-delivery pilot, are
    carefully tested and implemented and that the Commodity Supplemental
    Food Program (CSFP), which provides monthly food packages from USDA
    commodities, is funded to not only maintain the current caseloads but
    to enable nationwide expansion. Currently, CSFP only operates in 46
    states, the District of Columbia and two Indian reservations.
        While notable progress is being made to ``close the senior SNAP
    gap''--the gap between those eligible for the program and those who
    participate--gaps continue to widen between the number of seniors
    struggling with hunger and those receiving nutritious meals through the
    Older Americans Act (OAA) as the funding for these successful and
    effective programs have neither kept pace with inflation nor demand.
    The consequences are acute, such as adding even more seniors onto
    waiting lists, reducing Meals-on-Wheels services and days of operation,
    and in some cases, forcing them to close their doors altogether. A
    Government Accountability Office report released last summer found that
    about 83% of food-insecure seniors and 83% of physically impaired
    seniors did not receive meals [through the OAA], but likely need
    them.\8\ Currently, the Meals-on-Wheels network overall is serving 21
    million fewer meals annually to seniors than we were a decade ago in
    2005 \9\ due to declining Federal and state grants; stagnant private
    funding; and rising food and transportation costs. This slippery slope
    is concerning and, at a minimum, we must stave off this continuous
    decline not only for the health of our seniors, but for the health of
    our nation as a whole.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. Older Americans Act:
    Updated Information on Unmet Need for Services. Retrieved from
    www.gao.gov/assets/680/670738.pdf.
        \9\ Administration for Community Living. Data Source: AGID State
    Profiles, and the National Survey of OAA Participants. Retrieved from
    www.agid.acl.gov.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This Subcommittee, Committee and Congress are best positioned to
    further support and strengthen proven and effective programs serving
    our most vulnerable seniors and to adopt legislation favoring the
    bipartisan recommendations outlined in the National Commission on
    Hunger's just-released report, Freedom From Hunger: An Achievable Goal
    for the United States of America (https://hungercommission.rti.org/).
    The Meals-on-Wheels network commends the Commission for acknowledging
    the evidence that our programs improve the health and quality of life
    for America's most vulnerable older citizens; and for offering two
    recommendations to improve nutrition assistance options for people who
    are disabled or medically at risk. Accordingly, we urge Members of the
    Committee to consider the following policy priorities, and to commit to
    cross-Committee collaboration, when such recommendations may be outside
    of this Committee's jurisdiction:
    1. Protect and Support Nutritional Access for Seniors via the
            Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
        SNAP is our nation's largest Federal nutrition program, targeting
    households at or below 130% of the Federal poverty line, or an annual
    income of $15,180 for a senior living alone.\10\ However, only about
    40% of eligible seniors are enrolled in SNAP \11\ due to a variety of
    factors including stigma, misconceptions about the application process,
    and mobility or access issues, among others. On average, seniors on
    SNAP access only $129 a month,\12\ however, it can mean the difference
    between having to choose between meals or prescriptions. We urge
    Congress to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ United States Department of Agriculture. FY 2015 Income
    Eligibility Standards. Retrieved from www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/
    files/FY15_Income_Standards.pdf.
        \11\ United States Department of Agriculture. Trends in
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal
    Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2013. Retrieved from www.fns.usda.gov/sites/
    default/files/ops/Trends2010-2013.pdf.
        \12\ United States Department of Agriculture. Characteristics of
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal
    Year 2014. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/
    ops/Characteristics2014.pdf.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Ensure SNAP benefits are adequate.

       Support SNAP outreach and promote and disseminate state-
            level best practices for improving senior SNAP participation,
            such as simplified applications and screening in senior
            centers.

       Recognize the statute allowing states' eligibility for
            surplus or ``bonus'' commodities through the OAA-authorized
            Nutrition Services Incentive Program.

       Maximize voluntary contributions for home-delivered meals
            via SNAP, as has been allowed under the law since 1971, by
            supporting mobile point of sale devices for senior nutrition
            programs; similar to pilot tests that have occurred in farmers'
            markets.

       Analyze food security rates for all ``elderly,'' not just
            ``elderly living alone'' or ``households with elderly,'' in the
            annual Food Security Report.

       Define elderly as ``60 and older'' for the annual Food
            Security Report, not 65 and older, which is consistent with
            other USDA nutrition program definitions for ``elderly''.
    2. Fund, Reauthorize and Protect the Older Americans Act (OAA)
        The OAA has been the primary piece of Federal legislation
    supporting social and nutrition services to Americans age 60 and older
    since 1965. In 2013, the last year for which data exists, the OAA
    enabled more than 219 million meals to be provided to 2.4 million
    seniors.\13\ Despite the OAA's longstanding bipartisan, bicameral
    support, it has been unauthorized since 2011 and remains woefully
    under-funded. As such, we urge Congress to:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Administration for Community Living. Data Source: AGID State
    Profiles, and the National Survey of OAA Participants. Retrieved from
    www.agid.acl.gov.

       Pass S. 192, the Older Americans Reauthorization Act of
            2015. The Senate unanimously adopted, S. 192, the Older
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2015 in July of last year.

       Provide increased funding for OAA Nutrition Programs
            (Congregate, Home-Delivered and Nutrition Services Incentive
            Program) in FY 2017. We thank Congress for including a $20+
            million increase in the recently passed Consolidated
            Appropriations Act.

       End sequestration for FY 2018 and beyond and replace it with
            a balanced plan. OAA programs were hit hard by the unnecessary
            and harsh cuts in 2013 and are still recovering.
    3. Modify Medicare and Medicaid to Meet the Nutritional Needs of Our
            Most Vulnerable Seniors
        As described above, the health consequences of inadequate nutrition
    are particularly severe for seniors. Proper nutrition, on the other
    hand, averts unnecessary visits to the emergency room, reduces falls,
    admissions and readmissions to hospitals, saving billions in Medicare
    and Medicaid expenses. It is notable that a senior can receive Meals-
    on-Wheels for an entire year for about the same cost of one day in the
    hospital or one week in a nursing home.\14\ Accordingly, we recommend
    the following:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Meals-on-Wheels America. United States Fact Sheet (2015,
    March). Retrieved from www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/docs/default-
    source/fact-sheets/senior-fact-sheet-national.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

       Expand Medicare managed care plans to include coverage for
            home-delivered meals prepared and delivered by a private
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            nonprofit for seniors with physician recommendation.

       Expand Medicaid managed care plans to include coverage, with
            a physician recommendation, for home-delivered meals prepared
            and delivered by a private nonprofit for individuals who are
            too young for Medicare, but who are at serious medical risk or
            have a disability.

       Allow doctors to write billable Medicare and Medicaid
            ``prescriptions'' for nutritious and medically-appropriate
            meals prepared and delivered by a private nonprofit for
            individuals prior to being discharged from a hospital. Seniors
            receiving short-term nutrition interventions post-hospital
            discharge, ranging from a daily hot meal to a combination of
            different meal types (i.e., lunch, dinner, snack, hot or frozen
            meals), has resulted in readmission rates of 6-7% as compared
            to national 30 day readmission rates of 15-34%.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Meals-on-Wheels America. (2016, January). Comments on Proposed
    Discharge Planning Rule for Hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and
    Home Health Agencies (80 Fed. Reg. 68126).

        The time to act is now, especially given the magnitude of the
    senior hunger problem coupled with continued demographic shifts
    resulting in a rapidly aging population. The good news is that the
    infrastructure already exists to meet vulnerable, food-insecure seniors
    across a continuum of need, through successful programs currently
    administered through USDA and the Department of Health and Human
    Services if properly resourced. These programs support the most mobile
    seniors, who are able to shop for and/or prepare their own meals, to
    those who with a little assistance can socialize, exercise and eat
    nutritious meals together in congregate or group settings, to the least
    mobile, who are homebound and depend on that daily nutritious meal,
    friendly visit and safety check--that more than a meal service--from
    their local Meals-on-Wheels program to enable them to remain
    independent in their own homes. Working together to ensure that no
    senior in need struggles with hunger and isolation is not only an
    investment in our nation's fiscal future, but it is also a preventative
    prescription for significantly reducing Medicare and Medicaid expenses.
        Again, I want to sincerely thank the entire Subcommittee for your
    commitment to finding solutions to end hunger in America and the
    opportunity to testify before you. This is an issue that is not only
    within our reach to solve, but is also a moral, social and economic
    imperative. I hope my testimony has been both compelling and
    insightful, and I look forward to answering any questions you might
    have.

        The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Faris.
        And Mr. Schneidewind, please proceed with your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF ERIC J. SCHNEIDEWIND, J.D., PRESIDENT-ELECT, AARP,
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Schneidewind. Chairman Conaway, Subcommittee Chairman
    Walorski, Ranking Member McGovern, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for holding today's hearing on SNAP,
    and for inviting AARP to speak about the program's positive
    impact on older Americans.
        My name is Eric Schneidewind, and I am the AARP President-
    elect.
        SNAP is a critical part of the nutrition safety net
    available to low-income families and people in need, including
    the elderly and people with disabilities. It is exceptionally
    effective and efficient at reducing food insecurity. Program
    performance is better than it ever has been, with over 99
    percent of participating households meeting all the program's
    eligibility requirements in Fiscal Year 2014.
        Along with helping low-income persons eat healthier, more
    nutritious food, SNAP also helps stimulate the economy up to $9
    for every $5 in SNAP benefits spent; an economic effect that
    was part of the program's design.
        While SNAP is at the cornerstone of all public food
    assistance, other programs under the Subcommittee's
    jurisdiction also address senior hunger in tandem with the vast
    private charitable network that assists seniors every day.
    Programs such as the Commodities Supplemental Food Program, the
    Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Senior Farmers' Market
    Nutrition Program, as well as home-delivered and congregate
    meals authorized under Title III of the Older Americans Act,
    serve millions of seniors. But there is no replacement for SNAP
    when it comes to fighting hunger in all population groups, and
    older Americans are no exception.
        I would like to take a moment to recognize Lisa Marsh
    Ryerson, President of AARP Foundation, a charitable affiliate
    of AARP, and to thank her for being here today.
        According to Foundation research, the younger segment of
    older Americans is often at deeper risk for food insecurity
    than their older counterparts. Even if they have specialized
    needs or limitations, they might not qualify for other
    nutrition assistance programs geared toward older Americans.
    However, low-income seniors face problems that their younger
    counterparts do not; namely, reduced ability to re-enter the
    workforce, fixed incomes and retirement, and significantly
    higher medical costs.
        Seniors struggling with food security were over twice as
    likely to report being in poor health. Health care for someone
    over 65 costs three to five times what it costs for younger
    people. And researchers have recently discovered that severely
    food-insecure individuals required an average of $4,000 in
    care, compared to $2,806 for moderately food-insecure
    individuals, and only $1,608 for food-secure individuals. As
    the senior population grows, food security issues will continue
    to pressure the public and private healthcare system.
        For many seniors, food security can mean better management
    of a range of chronic diseases. Given the costs of chronic
    disease management to the healthcare system, and particularly
    programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, we believe that there
    is a strong incentive for policymakers to look at hunger as a
    health issue. It can be key to bending the cost curve,
    especially for seniors.
        SNAP benefits help recipients afford other necessities such
    as housing and utility expenses. There may also be a positive
    effect on other health-related problems associated with food
    insecurity, such as postponing needed medical care, delaying or
    not taking prescribed medications, and increased emergency room
    use. By providing SNAP benefits to individuals in need, we can
    help people live at home and age in place, helping to delay or
    prevent more costly institutional care and unnecessary
    hospitalizations. This saves taxpayer dollars because caring
    for people in their home costs about \1/3\ of the amount that
    institutional care costs, and it is the option that is
    overwhelmingly preferred by the recipients.
        Seniors participate in SNAP at a lower rate than any age
    group due to both societal and policy-related barriers.
    However, promising practices can remove barriers such as
    arduous application length, confusing medical expense
    deductions, asset tests, and in-person interviews for initial
    benefits and re-certification, which are difficult for
    homebound individuals.
        In Chicago, the AARP Foundation launched a mailer
    encouraging SNAP registration in targeted areas to link
    recipients with fresh fruits, vegetables, and proteins. The
    Foundation is also connecting fresh food supplies into food
    deserts, providing both application assistance and an ability
    to more easily use those funds on nutritious foods delivered
    into the community.
        The Chairwoman. Mr. Schneidewind, I am afraid you are out
    of time.
        Mr. Schneidewind. May I finish with my conclusions?
        The Chairwoman. Quickly.
        Mr. Schneidewind. We recommend that Congress refrain from
    making any further benefit cuts, and avoid making any
    structural changes that would weaken SNAP's ability to respond
    to increased needs due to economic changes. We recommend that
    you resist expanded work requirements, particularly on workers
    50+, who typically take longer to find new permanent employment
    after being unemployed. We ask you to continue to protect
    categorical eligibility as in the last farm bill, which is
    essential to improving access to SNAP for low-income Americans
    of all ages, and that you invest in community-based initiatives
    to assist older adults and other vulnerable populations in
    better managing chronic conditions. You should simplify the
    application process, lengthening re-certification periods, and
    provide additional incentives to states to expand eligibility--

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schneidewind follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Eric J. Schneidewind, J.D., President-Elect,
                             AARP, Washington, D.C.
        Chairman Conway, Subcommittee Chairman Walorski, Ranking Member
    McGovern, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding
    today's hearing on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP,
    formerly known as food stamps), and for inviting AARP to speak about
    program's positive impact on older Americans. My name is Eric
    Schneidewind, and I am the AARP President-elect. AARP is a nonprofit,
    non-partisan organization, with a membership of nearly 38 million ages
    50+, that helps people turn their goals and dreams into real
    possibilities, strengthens communities and fights for the issues that
    matter most to families.
    Overview of SNAP
        SNAP is a critical part of the nutrition safety net available to
    low-income families and people in need, including the elderly and
    people with disabilities. It has been shown that participating in SNAP
    can lead to improvements in a household's food security status,
    especially for those with very-low food security.\1\ The mechanism by
    which SNAP reduces food insecurity is simple--it increases a
    household's food budget and enables them to buy more food than they
    would otherwise be able to purchase. Further studies show that while
    SNAP households see improved dietary intakes, there is still much work
    to be done, particularly with those on low benefit levels.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Measuring2013.pdf.
        \2\ http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(15)00226-3/pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Why SNAP is Effective
        SNAP is exceptionally effective and efficient at achieving its
    mission of reducing food insecurity. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, an
    average of 45.9 million individuals in 22.4 million households received
    SNAP benefits every month. The average SNAP household had an income of
    only 58 percent of the Federal poverty line in 2014, with 82 percent of
    SNAP benefits going to households with a child, elderly, or disabled
    person.\3\ At the same time, program performance is better than it ever
    has been. In FY 2014, SNAP error rates stood at record lows with over
    99 percent of participating households meeting all the program's
    eligibility requirements.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/
    Characteristics2014.pdf.
        \4\ http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/quality-control.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Along with helping low-income persons eat healthier, more
    nutritious food, SNAP also helps stimulate the economy--up to $9 for
    every $5 in SNAP benefits spent.\5\ This is not an unintentional
    effect. SNAP was designed to help more Americans during times of
    economic crisis and increased need, blunting the larger macroeconomic
    effects--including but not limited to reduced consumer spending on even
    essential items such as food--that are typically a result of higher
    unemployment and lower household incomes. The recent economic recession
    demonstrated the importance of SNAP in providing food assistance for
    families that would have otherwise gone without food.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/134117/err103_1_.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Public-Private Partnership Fighting Senior Hunger
        While SNAP is at the cornerstone of all public food assistance in
    the United States, we would be remiss if we do not mention other
    programs under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee that also address
    the issue of senior hunger in tandem with the vast private charitable
    network that assists seniors every day. Programs such as the Commodity
    Supplemental Food Program (CSFP),\6\ the Emergency Food Assistance
    Program (TEFAP), the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program
    (SFMNP),\7\ as well as home-delivered and congregate meals authorized
    under Title III of the Older Americans Act,\8\ serve millions of
    seniors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ CSFP served approximately 573,000 individuals in FY 2014:
    http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pfs-csfp.pdf.
        \7\ SFMNP served 787,139 in FY 2014: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/
    default/files/sfmnp/
    SFMNP%20Profile%20for%20Participating%20State%20Agencies%20-
    %20FY2014.pdf.
        \8\ OAA home-delivered and congregate meals served 2,405,394
    seniors in FY 2013 http://www.agid.acl.gov/CustomTables/SPR/Results/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to Feeding America, approximately 28 percent of their
    food banks' clients--13 million Americans--are over the age of 50.\9\
    However, many of these Federal programs are appropriately targeted to
    seniors with significant limitations in their activities of daily
    living (ADLs), such as the ability to shop for and prepare their own
    meals, as well as seniors who are homebound. And while the significant
    charitable response is admirable, there is no replacement for SNAP when
    it comes to fighting hunger in all population groups--and older
    Americans are no exception.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/our-research/
    senior-hunger-research/baby-boomers-executive-summary.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Importance of SNAP to Seniors
        Elderly households, which are defined as those with an individual
    over age 60, represented 19 percent of all SNAP recipients in FY 2014.
    Out of this cohort, 85 percent received either Supplemental Security
    Income (SSI) or Social Security, and 82 percent of elderly households
    receiving SNAP consisted of an elderly individual living alone. On
    average, elderly SNAP households received an average benefit of $129
    per month.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/
    Characteristics2014.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to research by AARP Foundation--a charitable affiliate of
    AARP--over 17 percent of adults over the age of 40 are food-insecure.
    Among age cohorts over age 50, food insecurity was worse for the 50-59
    age group, with over ten percent experiencing either low or very-low
    food security. Among the 60-69 age cohort, over nine percent
    experienced similar levels of food insecurity, and over six percent
    among the 70+ population. This emphasizes the fact that the younger
    segment of older Americans are often at deeper risk for food security
    than their older counterparts, primarily because they have yet to
    receive Social Security benefits and--even if they have specialized
    needs or limitations--might not qualify for other nutrition assistance
    programs geared toward older Americans.
        However, low-income seniors face problems that younger low-income
    Americans do not, namely reduced ability to re-enter the workforce,
    fixed incomes in retirement, as well as significantly higher medical
    costs. AARP research shows that older job seekers are more likely to
    look for work longer, and when they do re-enter the workforce, often
    have no choice but to take part-time or low-paying jobs.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2015-03/The-Long-
    Road-Back_INSIGHT.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2012, 88 percent of SNAP households with seniors reported
    medical expenses.\12\ The typical amount was $550 for the year,
    equivalent to $46 a month. AARP Foundation research shows that two in
    five American adults over age 50 had to cut down or skip meals in the
    last year because of a lack of food, and one in five have difficulty
    buying nutritious food.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-20-
    14fa.pdf.
        \13\ http://pdf.aarpfoundation.org/i/455086-aarp-foundation-
    findings-on-nutrition-knowledge-and-food-insecurity-among-older-adults.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
    the cost of health care of someone 65 and older is upwards of three to
    five times higher than the cost of care for someone in a younger
    cohort. And among the population over 65, nearly 95 percent of health
    care costs go toward treating and managing chronic illnesses.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ http://www.cdc.gov/features/agingandhealth/
    state_of_aging_and_health_in_america_
    2013.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Positive Impact on Health and Quality of Life
        For many seniors, food security can mean better management of a
    whole range of chronic diseases, and it can make the difference in
    being able to age-in-place with dignity or face no choice but to enter
    institutional care. Put in different terms, a marginally food-secure
    senior has a reduced nutritional intake equivalent to having $15,000
    less in annual income when compared to food-secure seniors.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/34/11/
    1830.full.pdf+html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Compared to food-secure seniors, those facing food insecurity are
    53 percent more likely to die of a heart attack, 40 percent more likely
    to have congestive heart failure, 22 percent more likely to face
    limitations of ADLs, and are 60 percent more likely to suffer from
    depression.\16\ Overall, seniors struggling with food security were
    over twice as likely to report being in poor health.\17\ For example,
    as food insecurity worsens, health care utilization and total health
    care costs increases. Researchers recently discovered that severely
    food-insecure individuals required an average of $4,000 in care,
    compared to $2,806 for moderately food-insecure individuals and $1,608
    for food-secure individuals.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/our-research/
    senior-hunger-research/or-spotlight-on-senior-health-executive-
    summary.pdf.
        \17\ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11340107.
        \18\ http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2015/08/10/cmaj.150234.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Given the costs of chronic disease management to the health care
    system, particularly programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, there is a
    strong incentive for policymakers to look at hunger as a health issue.
    If we ensure that SNAP is accessible and sufficient, it can be a key
    strategy to bending the health care cost curve, especially for seniors.
    One such example of how these causes are inexorably linked is a recent
    study that showed that risk for hospital admissions for hypoglycemia
    spiked 27 percent in the last week of the month--as compared to the
    first week of the month--when food and SNAP budgets of low-income
    populations have often been exhausted.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/1/
    116.full.pdf+html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Furthermore, SNAP benefits help recipients afford other basic
    necessities, such as housing and utility expenses, by freeing up
    household resources otherwise needed for food costs. There may also be
    a positive effect on other health related problems associated with food
    insecurity, such as postponing needed medical care, delaying or not
    taking prescribed medications, increased emergency room use, and more
    frequent hospitalizations among low-income adults.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ M. Kushel et al., 2005. ``Housing Instability and Food
    Insecurity as Barriers to Health Care Among Low-Income Americans,''
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 21:71-77.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another study showed that the costs of hunger to the entire health
    care system were an estimated $160 billion.\21\ As the senior
    population continues to grow, along with the incidence of chronic
    disease, food security issues will only continue to put more pressure
    on the public and private health care system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ http://hungerreport.org/2016/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/
    HR2016-Full-Report-Web.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        By providing SNAP benefits to those in need, we can help people
    live at home and age-in-place, helping to delay or prevent more costly
    institutional care and unnecessary hospitalizations, saving taxpayer
    dollars. Research demonstrates states that invest in home and
    community-based services, over time, slow their rate of Medicaid
    spending growth, compared to states that remain reliant on nursing
    homes. On average, the Medicaid program can provide services to help
    roughly three older adults and adults with physical disabilities live
    independently in their homes and communities for the cost of serving
    one person in a nursing home.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ A. Houser, W. Fox-Grage, & K. Ujvari, Across the States:
    Profiles of Long-Term Term Services and Supports 2012 16 (AARP PPI,
    2012), http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/
    public_policy_institute/ltc/2012/across-the-states-2012-full-report-
    AARP-ppi-ltc.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Barriers to Senior Participation
        While the public and private implications of food security might be
    most significant for seniors, they participate in SNAP at a lower rate
    than any age cohort. Where the overall participation rate for eligible
    households is 85 percent, only 41 percent of eligible elderly
    households participate in SNAP. While the participation rate is
    slightly higher for households with only one elderly individual, at 54
    percent, these rates remain woefully low, despite recent increases.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Trends2010-
    2013.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Many barriers to older adults' participation in SNAP are societal--
    some seniors are under the misconception that if they accept SNAP
    benefits they will exclude other people, many are embarrassed to accept
    public assistance, and others might not know they are eligible.
    However, promising practices can remove policy-related barriers such as
    arduous application length, in-person interviews for initial benefits
    and re-certification which are difficult for homebound individuals,
    confusing medical expense deductions, and asset tests.
        USDA has taken steps to implement programs such as the Elderly
    Simplified Application Project--which shortens applications, waives
    interviews, and lengthens re-certification periods--as well as the
    Standard Medical Deduction Demonstration, which allows elderly and
    disabled adults with more than $35 in out-of-pocket medical expenses to
    deduct a standard amount from their gross income in order to qualify
    for benefits.
        However, additional pilots, such as the Combined Application
    Projects--which screens individuals applying for Social Security and
    other benefits for eligibility in SNAP--create government efficiency
    while also improving outcomes for older Americans that might otherwise
    struggle with food security. And while asset tests have been phased out
    in most states, elderly individuals struggling with high medical
    expenses and limited incomes should not have to face such tests,
    especially when some states have asset tests as low as $3,250 for
    elderly and disabled adults.
    SNAP Outreach and Education Efforts
        SNAP outreach that can connect consumers directly to programs that
    serve the SNAP population can be effective. For example, in Chicago,
    AARP Foundation has launched a physical mailer encouraging SNAP
    registration in specifically targeted areas to link SNAP recipients
    with fresh fruits, vegetables, and proteins. The Foundation is also
    connecting fresh food supplies into food deserts--defined as urban
    neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy,
    and affordable food \24\--providing both SNAP application assistance
    and an ability to more easily use those funds on nutritious foods
    delivered to their community. Based on this learning, the Foundation is
    exploring how to create a SNAP application on smartphones and easy
    pathways to utilize benefits at SNAP approved grocery stores or food
    delivery that can maximize the volume of nutritious food available on a
    SNAP budget. The goal of this work is to create easily replicable
    application pathways and immediately connect the recipient to healthy
    food options.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ https://apps.ams.usda.gov/fooddeserts/fooddeserts.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New Innovative Approaches
        While addressing the issues of access to SNAP benefits is
    essential, it is also our belief that we must empower low-income older
    adults to be smarter, healthier consumers. To that end, it is important
    to implement and evaluate innovative programming that demonstrates
    addressing hunger as a health issue pays both private and public
    dividends.
        One of the AARP Foundation programs is a SNAP fruit and vegetable
    incentive program called Fre$h Savings. This program incentivizes the
    purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables by SNAP shoppers in Mississippi
    and Tennessee, where according to USDA 22 percent (Mississippi) and
    over 16 percent (Tennessee) of households are food-insecure. Among
    those households with members age 50 and older, over 16 percent in
    Mississippi are food-insecure, as well as over ten percent in
    Tennessee.\25\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/aarp_foundation/2015-
    PDFs/AF-Food-Insecurity-2015Update-Final-Report.pdf via DataExplorer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At the ten currently participating grocery stores, for every $10
    spent by a SNAP consumer on fresh fruits and vegetables, a coupon will
    print at check-out for 50 percent off the next purchase of fresh fruits
    and vegetables, with a maximum coupon value of $10 (maximum of two
    coupons per SNAP household, per month). At 16 currently participating
    farmers' markets, when a SNAP customer spends up to $10 with their SNAP
    card, they will get the same amount in Fre$h Savings tokens to spend on
    fresh fruits and vegetables. In both stores and farmers' markets,
    educational materials are available to inform consumers about the Fre$h
    Savings program and its value for SNAP shoppers.
        Since September of last year, the program has distributed over
    11,000 coupons at stores and over $2,500 in tokens at farmers' markets.
    The coupons have been redeemed at a rate of 27 percent, almost twice
    the typical redemption rate for a normal coupon program at the
    participating stores. The program is already slated to expand into an
    additional 15 farmers' markets and 12 more stores in Mississippi and
    Tennessee, and is beginning to build a business case for retailers to
    implement such programs on their own.
        Previous research on incentives at farmers' markets
    26-27 and from a retail pilot by USDA \28\ have demonstrated
    these programs are effective at a much smaller scale; however, Fre$h
    Savings is one of the first such SNAP incentive programs to be
    implemented with a major, national retail grocer, which is where
    approximately 33 percent of all SNAP benefits are spent and where 87
    percent of all older Americans say they shop for food on a regular
    basis.29-30 The potential to scale this program could have
    significant implications not only for the health and well-being of low-
    income Americans, but for retailers of any size.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ http://www.wholesomewave.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/
    2013_healthy_food_
    incentives_cluster_evaluation.pdf.
        \27\ http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/FarmersMarkets-
    Shopping-Patterns-Summary.pdf.
        \28\ http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/HIP-Final-
    Summary.pdf.
        \29\ http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/2014-SNAP-
    Retailer-Management-Annual-Report.pdf.
        \30\ http://pdf.aarpfoundation.org/i/455086-aarp-foundation-
    findings-on-nutrition-knowledge-and-food-insecurity-among-older-adults.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2014 Farm Bill
        The 2014 Farm Bill included the following major changes and
    outcomes:

       Limited cuts to SNAP--larger cuts would have led to a less
            effective program to continue fighting hunger and food
            insecurity;

       Maintained ``expanded categorical eligibility,'' preserving
            benefits for over two million people in households, including
            low-income working families and seniors; \31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42054.pdf.

       Modified the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
            (LIHEAP), but ensured that no current SNAP recipient was
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            removed from the program;

       Permitted nonprofits that purchase and deliver foods to the
            elderly and people with disabilities to accept SNAP as payment;

       Authorized Community Supported Agriculture Organizations
            (CSAs) to become authorized SNAP retailers, expanding potential
            grantee connections;

       Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) received
            an extra $200 million for commodities that will flow primarily
            through the food bank network;

       The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) now
            exclusively serves seniors, as pregnant and postpartum women
            and children have shifted to WIC;

       Improved Access to Healthy Food: Food Insecurity Nutrition
            Incentive (FINI) grants were authorized with $100 million to
            states and community-based organizations to increase the
            purchase of fresh produce where nutrition education is part of
            the anti-hunger strategy;

       New data exchange standards to help ensure SNAP can share
            data with other key Federal and state programs more efficiently
            and effectively; and

       Strengthened program integrity provisions while adding tools
            to combat trafficking and other program abuses, and restored
            bonus payments to reward program accuracy.
    Future Opportunities to Strengthen SNAP
        As the debate over SNAP moves forward, AARP recommends that we:

       Refrain from making any further benefit cuts under SNAP that
            would jeopardize the program's ability to carry out its
            important mission and avoid making any structural changes that
            would weaken SNAP's ability to respond to increased needs due
            to changes in the economy; (Research suggests that policies
            which increase SNAP benefits have been shown to improve food
            security among low-income households.) \32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ M. Nord and M. Prell, Food Security Improved Following the
    2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefits, USDA Economic Research Report
    Number 116, 2011. http:/www.ers.usda.gov/media/127913/err116.pdf.

       Resist expanded work requirements under SNAP above those
            already in place, particularly any new requirements on workers
            50+ who typically take longer than younger workers to find new
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            permanent employment after being unemployed;

       Continue to protect categorical eligibility--as was done in
            the last farm bill--it is essential to improving access to SNAP
            for low-income Americans of all ages; \33\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42054.pdf.

       Invest in community-based initiatives to assist older adults
            and other vulnerable populations in better managing chronic
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            conditions through nutrition and physical activity;

       Simplify and improve the application process for SNAP:
            Preliminary evidence from USDA pilots show that simplifying
            applications, lengthening re-certification periods, and
            screening seniors applying for other public benefits are
            improvements to the administration of SNAP that create more
            efficient and effective government while also improving the
            quality of life of low-income older Americans. Some other
            programs, such as the Standard Medical Deduction Demonstration,
            help to give a more accurate estimate of medical costs' impact
            on a senior's income, thereby giving them more sufficient
            benefits;

       Allow grandparent and other non-parent caregivers to apply
            for benefits on behalf of the children in their care;

       Provide additional incentives to states to undertake reforms
            to expand SNAP eligibility for low-income households, such as
            eliminating asset tests for low-income older households and/or
            expanding income and resource deductions; and

       Closely monitor restrictions on outreach included in the
            2014 Farm Bill to evaluate whether they are having a negative
            impact on SNAP for vulnerable populations that already face
            barriers to participation.

        Again, thank you for holding this hearing and for understanding the
    important role of SNAP in addressing food insecurity among low-income
    seniors. I am happy to answer any questions.

        The Chairwoman. Mr. Schneidewind, I am going to have to cut
    you off there, in deference to all the other witnesses, but I
    appreciate your testimony.
        Mr. Schneidewind. Thank you.
        The Chairwoman. Absolutely.
        Ms. Leibman, I wanted to direct my question to you. In
    addition to sitting as Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, I also
    sit on the House Armed Services Committee and the Veterans
    Committee as well, so I know all too well how the VA system is
    broken in so many ways. But in situations where there are
    delays in VA benefits, which is often for thousands of people,
    can SNAP be useful because of how quickly it can absolutely be
    brought into the system, and then can you just kind of talk to
    the fact of how SNAP is used as a bridge in some of these
    situations?
        Ms. Leibman. Absolutely. The concept of having adequate
    food is an important part of the healing process for people,
    and helps them get back up on their feet. So obviously, the
    more quickly people can access those benefits, particularly
    people who are struggling with disabilities when they return
    from being mobilized, the better for them. And one of the
    consequences of the way in which the system is currently
    working at the VA is that not only are they having delays,
    sometimes they are not even asked about whether they can
    qualify, given opportunities to apply for the benefits
    themselves. And in thinking through the relationship between
    what the social workers, the medical professionals are being
    confronted with when someone comes in the door at the VA, they
    need to really address whether or not these people are
    struggling with food insecurity. They don't even ask. I think
    at the outset, if they are asked about that, there will be a
    move in the direction of getting them application assistance,
    which, again, becomes a secondary issue because sometimes the
    application process itself is very onerous, and as I said, it
    can result in terrible delays. So expediting that process for
    veterans who are seeking qualification as disabled would do
    tremendous good in helping them to recover.
        The Chairwoman. I appreciate it.
        And then just quickly, Mr. Faris, the Meals-on-Wheels
    Program in my district is phenomenal in the South Bend area
    that serves a regional area, and really is one of the models
    for a lot of the Midwest. I am just curious though, what are
    some of the impediments to seniors actually seeking out
    benefits; that generation of senior citizens. And it seems like
    it is so disproportionate, such a tiny amount of seniors
    actually reach out, yet they are so far down the list of food
    insecurity, what are some of the impediments that you have
    seen, because Meals-on-Wheels is a revolutionary program that
    works hand-in-hand with SNAP. So I guess twofold; what are some
    of the impediments from seniors reaching out, and then second,
    do you see SNAP as a program that has been an easy partner
    with, and perhaps, more organizations coming alongside?
        Mr. Faris. Yes, ma'am. One of the most difficult tasks that
    Meals-on-Wheels organizations have in trying to encourage, when
    we see needy individuals who could certainly benefit from the
    SNAP benefits, is getting them to truly understand it. And what
    we are dealing with here is egos. They are not looking for a
    handout. They don't want to get too far out in front. They are
    proud people. That is first and foremost in it.
        One of the other things, they think that the process is
    difficult. When they have all of the life challenges bearing
    down on them at this advanced stage in life, it is sometimes
    more than they can handle. They think it is an onerous process
    to go through. And probably third, I would say that they think
    the benefit is too small. Most of them think they are not going
    to get anything. There are probably some out there that would
    think that they would be taking benefits from other people as
    well.
        It has been a difficult program to work for a lot of Meals-
    on-Wheels organizations. Speaking from our own, it is not as
    easy to get people signed up as it could be and should be. We
    would like to see a much more streamlined process.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. I appreciate it.
        And, Ms. Leibman, one final question. I am back to VA,
    because I am thinking about casework that comes into our
    offices, all of our offices, Congressional offices around the
    country, and issues with delays, patient care, applications,
    phenomenal delays in disability assessments and those kinds of
    things. So when we are talking about, for example, if we made a
    move and we said we want to focus a lot more on these SNAP
    benefits toward veteran organizations, I cringe when I think
    about asking the VA to do one more thing because so many of the
    things that are happening are not done correctly. So if we were
    looking at a way to expedite that process or something like
    that, would this be something that we would work more on the
    USDA end and making sure those connections are timely and
    efficient, and that type of a thing, not just handing this over
    to the VA and having them reach back to the USDA? How does that
    sound? We are almost out of time, but maybe I can talk to you
    about it afterwards to at least plant the seed. How does that
    work?
        Ms. Leibman. The good news is that the VA and USDA have
    begun a dialogue in which they are talking exactly about these
    issues, that they are demonstrating extraordinary leadership
    and innovation and trying to find ways to work together to
    resolve some of these issues.
        The Chairwoman. Good.
        Ms. Leibman. I think the movement forward has begun, and
    the support from Congress to see that happen is probably
    essential.
        The Chairwoman. I appreciate it.
        Mr. McGovern is yielding to Ms. Adams, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. And
    Ranking Member McGovern, thank you. And to all of our guests,
    thank you very much.
        Of the six counties that are represented by my district,
    the 12th in North Carolina, the Department of Health and Human
    Services estimates that 25,000 or more able-bodied adults
    without dependents will be impacted by the reinstatement of
    SNAP work requirements. This includes over 10,000 adults in
    Mecklenburg and 8,000 in Guilford, where I live. And an able-
    bodied adult can continue to receive SNAP benefits only if they
    enroll in an employment and training program, but most counties
    do not have the funds necessary to meet the Federal matching
    requirement for the SNAP employment and training program.
        Ms. Leibman, you mentioned in your testimony that ABAWD
    work requirements will impact 60,000 veterans nationwide. Where
    have you seen success in connecting ABAWDs to job training
    programs that allow them to continue receiving SNAP benefits?
        Ms. Leibman. I am, personally, not aware of any stellar,
    outstanding programs that have been focused on moving veterans
    through the employment training system, and when they are also
    in the category of ABAWDs, into gainful employment. That is not
    a focus or an emphasis of what MAZON does, so it is possible
    those programs exist but it is not something of which I am
    aware.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you.
        Mr. Schneidewind, my office is currently drafting
    legislation that will strengthen the SNAP Program, and make the
    standard medical deduction permanently authorized. This is
    going to allow seniors and the disabled to include their
    medical expenses when they apply for SNAP benefits, without
    having to itemize every out-of-pocket purchase they make just
    to receive more adequate SNAP benefits. Nationally, how much do
    you see the medical expense deduction being under-utilized by
    seniors and the disabled due to the lack of a standard medical
    deduction in all 50 states?
        Mr. Schneidewind. Well, I don't have estimates of that
    precise element, but I can tell you that seniors apply for SNAP
    at a rate almost \1/2\ of the other populations, and we have
    found that very complicated requirements for application,
    frequent re-certification, requirement for many people to leave
    their home when they don't have mobility to make that
    application, all of these factors have deterred or discouraged
    seniors from applying for those benefits. So we believe some of
    the complexities and the requirements in eligibility need to be
    simplified and certainly reduced to increase participation of
    seniors.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. And I want to thank all of
    you for your testimony. And, Mr. McGovern, I thank you for
    yielding. And, Madam Chair, I am going to yield back my time.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you.
        I now yield to Chairman Conaway, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Conaway. Thank you. Again, I thank the witnesses for
    being here.
        Mr. Faris, you mentioned that most Meals-on-Wheels programs
    had waiting lists or backlog lists.
        Mr. Faris. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Conaway. Can you walk us through why that is the case,
    and would all of those folks already be on the SNAP program,
    and then give us the mechanics of how SNAP interrelates with
    Meals-on-Wheels. In other words, do you get payments from SNAP?
    Help us understand the program as to why there are backlogs.
        Mr. Faris. In the Older Americans Act nutrition programs
    today there is a significantly smaller number of meals being
    served annually than what was being served 10 years ago. We are
    serving actually 21 million fewer meals this year than in 2005.
        One of the big challenges that we have out there is that
    funding for the Older Americans Act has not kept pace with the
    growth of the population.
        Mr. Conaway. And that is where the funding for Meals-on-
    Wheels comes from?
        Mr. Faris. That is where the large part of Meals-on-Wheels
    funding comes from.
        Mr. Conaway. Okay. Do you get funds from the SNAP Program
    as well?
        Mr. Faris. In Texas, in our program, we have great
    difficulty utilizing SNAP. We should be able to, but we do not
    have the ability for the electronic funds benefit cards.
        Mr. Conaway. Is that a restriction on your side or on the
    state side, or the Fed side?
        Mr. Faris. It is difficult working with the state.
        Mr. Conaway. Okay.
        Mr. Faris. So what we do is encourage the clients out
    there, the participants, recipients, needy seniors, to be using
    their SNAP benefits for other necessities there at the grocery
    store.
        Mr. Conaway. Right. And the backlog is caused by just the
    funding shortage?
        Mr. Faris. That is the biggest problem.
        Mr. Conaway. Right.
        Ms. Tebbens, thank you for your story, and I appreciate
    that. Ms. Leibman, thank you as well for the work you do.
        Other than the basic housing allowance, which is hard to
    justify the differential between the treatment, that is clearly
    something we ought to address, are there other things that
    stand in the way of getting these veterans the help they need,
    or the active duty folks the help they need?
        Ms. Leibman. Yes, sir. Excuse me. The difference between
    qualifying for SNAP and becoming food-secure is something that
    the Committee and Congress should pay attention to because the
    support of SNAP is essential to allowing people to have some
    support for purchasing power with regard to groceries, but it
    doesn't mean that these individuals have become food-secure in
    their households. So some of this has to do with the
    complications that come from moving from state to state, when
    they are deployed from one place to another, so there is a lack
    of consistency in the ways in which people apply for benefits
    in states, that the rules can change, the qualifications for
    them can change. There are issues for them with regard to
    emergency financial situations that come up. So some of this is
    not uncommon to other parts of the population, but in a
    military context there is less support for addressing some of
    those needs, in part because of the stigma attached for seeking
    assistance, and then access to those programs and benefits that
    may or may not be close to base or where they are stationed.
        Mr. Conaway. Okay.
        Mr. Faris, you mentioned that 92 year old lady in your
    testimony. Thelma? What was her name?
        Mr. Faris. I beg your pardon?
        Mr. Conaway. The lady you mentioned, her name?
        Mr. Faris. Yes, Emily.
        Mr. Conaway. Emily, excuse me. Is there a part of your
    program that tries to engage families? In other words, if Emily
    has no family at all, we have to get families involved. Is
    there a way that you guys look at that to try to augment
    support for these folks that get contact, other than just the
    Meals-on-Wheels?
        Mr. Faris. We try as hard as we can. What we are now
    seeing, in individuals like Emily, so many of them are
    outliving their families and their friends, and the families
    that they do have left are too many generations down and they
    have lost interest, and so it is very difficult. We do
    everything we can to try to get them involved.
        Mr. Conaway. Yes. Are there legal barriers that we need to
    address that prevents you from actually doing a better job at
    that?
        Mr. Faris. I am not aware of any legal barriers. No, sir.
        Mr. Conaway. Okay. Again, thank you for helping us
    understand these special populations, and we will continue to
    work to improve these programs.
        This is among that group that very few folks among us would
    say we shouldn't be trying to help. Probably have a difference
    of opinion on the able-bodied adults with no dependents, but
    certainly the majority of the folks you represent are a
    population that all of us have a heart for, and we need to try
    and figure out how to do that better. Thank you for the work
    you do as advocates.
        And with that, I yield back.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I now yield to Congressman McGovern.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
        Well, first of all, let me thank you all for your
    testimony. And you all were incredibly eloquent, but I have to
    say that your testimony is sad. We live in the richest country
    in the history of the world, and we have a big chunk of our
    population that doesn't know whether they can put food on the
    table. We have people who are hungry, and we all should be
    ashamed of that. This reflects a failure of government to
    respond adequately. We all have nothing but praise for
    charities, but let's be honest, charities can't do this alone.
    And I have advocated for some time that the White House put
    together a White House conference on food, nutrition, and
    hunger to connect the dots.
        Ms. Leibman, you talked about the conversation going on
    between the VA and the USDA. That is encouraging, but there
    needs to be conversations amongst multiple agencies and
    departments, not only at the Federal level, but Federal, state
    and local level, with the private-sector, with charities, with
    food banks, with organizations like AARP, and all the different
    groups out there that have anything to do with this.
        And Mr. Schneidewind mentioned that hunger should be
    treated as a health issue, and I agree with him. But the
    problem around here is that the budget for SNAP doesn't come
    out of the budget for Medicare or Medicaid, and so, we are not
    very good at saving money over here if we have to spend a
    little bit over here.
        I began by expressing my concern about what happened over
    the weekend in South Carolina. I just want to ask for the
    record, does anybody here think that it is a good idea to
    block-grant SNAP? Anybody?
        Ms. Leibman. No.
        Mr. Schneidewind. No.
        Mr. McGovern. Okay. All right. And based on the testimony
    not only from those of you here but from the other hearings we
    have had, the benefit that currently exists seems inadequate to
    be able to get people to a point where they are no longer food-
    insecure. In other words, most of these people who get on SNAP
    have to rely on other programs as well, or go to food banks or
    food pantries. So does anyone here think that the benefit is
    adequate?
        Ms. Leibman. No.
        Mr. Schneidewind. No.
        Mr. McGovern. All right. Okay. I appreciate your direct
    answers.
        My colleague, Ms. Adams, raised this issue of ABAWDs again,
    and they tend to get a bad rap. And to make it clear for my
    colleagues, these are people we are told that in this year up
    to one million of the nation's poorest adults who fit into this
    category will be cut off of SNAP, as a 3 month limit on SNAP
    benefits for unemployed adults who are not disabled, or raising
    minor children, returns in many areas. I think a lot of people
    don't understand the very difficult circumstances that some of
    these people face.
        Now, up here in Congress, these so-called reforms have been
    put into place. But, no one in Congress is on food stamps, no
    one is on SNAP, and so it sounds like a reform. We will just
    incentivize people to work, or we will incentivize people to
    get job training. But one of the realities is that many of
    these poor individuals who will be cut off are veterans, they
    have honorably served our country, and some of them are now
    deeply struggling.
        Ms. Leibman, if you can just talk to us about the overlap
    between the veteran population and ABAWDs, that would be very
    helpful.
        Ms. Leibman. Yes. There is a significant overlap,
    obviously. And I referenced the notion that there would be
    60,000 veterans, is the best estimates that we have been able
    to gather, that would lose their benefits when the time limits
    are implemented, when they are now going to have time limits on
    when they can get SNAP. And the challenges that they face have
    to do with having adequate access to training programs, which
    Congresswoman Adams referenced, and that--and there is a
    program in Washington State, that my colleague reminded me of,
    that is, in fact, an efficacious program, so there is a model
    to look to. But there have to not only be enough slots in those
    training programs, the training programs have to be meaningful,
    they have to be relevant to the job market in that particular
    community, and then there have to be jobs available.
        Mr. McGovern. Right.
        Ms. Leibman. And not all of that can come together at the
    same moment and the same time, for everyone who is looking. And
    for veteran populations that may become mobile, that is, they
    have to move again to look for work and start over again. And
    during all this period of time, they are no longer getting
    benefits so they are no longer able to sustain themselves.
        So there is a circle.
        Mr. McGovern. These people are not lazy.
        Ms. Leibman. No.
        Mr. McGovern. They are not content at just being on SNAP, I
    mean they would like very much to have a job. But, because the
    situation is a lot more complicated than sometimes we make it,
    the situation that they face right now is that they may lose
    their benefit.
        Ms. Leibman. That is correct. Nobody has an easy or
    comfortable life living on government benefits.
        Mr. McGovern. Right.
        Ms. Leibman. It is not a boon, it is, in fact, a very
    limited existence, and one which virtually everybody on the
    program who is not currently employed, which a huge a
    percentage are, of course, is seeking a way to get off of
    government benefits, unless, of course, they are in a position
    where they are so vulnerable that they cannot find a way to get
    revenue in any other way, and then we need to find other
    programs that help to support them.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
        The Chairwoman. I now recognize Congressman Thompson, 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Thompson. Madam Chair, thank you so much for this
    hearing. I want to thank you and thank Chairman Conaway,
    despite some of the things you might have heard, there are no
    preconceived conclusions here. We are having an honest
    dialogue, just like some other folks had an honest dialogue
    over the weekend. And in that dialogue, we are going to hear
    different ideas; some we may agree with, some we don't, but
    unless we can have that dialogue, because we are not going to
    achieve our objective of making sure these are the best
    possible programs to meet the needs of folks who are out there.
        These are important issues to me. Thirty years ago, my wife
    and I were starting out with our family, first child, we were
    on the WIC Program. Ms. Tebbens, I remember how uncomfortable
    back then we were taking those vouchers to the local IGA, but
    how important that was in terms of ensuring that my wife and
    our unborn and newborn son, Parker, who is now a 31 year old
    pastor, was able to get the nutrition that he needed to be
    healthy.
        I am a military dad. I have a son and a daughter-in-law,
    the daughter-in-law is out of the Army now, but I am well aware
    of the military food insecurity, especially for those folks,
    when they go into the military, they are maybe a little older
    and they have a number of kids, just an E1, E2, E3, it is
    challenging, and I am glad I am hearing good ideas here of what
    we need to do.
        I am a former therapist and a licensed nurse home
    administrator, so I know that senior nutrition is about senior
    health, it is about independence, and so I look forward to
    working on the Older Americans Act. I am also a proud member of
    the Howard Area Lions Club, and we maintain a food pantry.
    There are many different ways we attack hunger and nutrition.
    SNAP is a supplemental nutrition assistance program. It is not
    meant to be the end-all. I remember back when we were eligible
    for the WIC benefits, we also regularly received bags of
    groceries every time we left my in-laws. My mother-in-law
    packed the bag and my wife and I still reflect back on that,
    how important family was during those times.
        With our Lions Club, we have a food pantry, but we also do
    something--I don't know if a lot of food pantries do this or
    food banks. Our members deliver. Not everything, but there are
    folks who just can't travel. They live in remote areas, they
    have difficulties with transportation. And it seems to me it is
    really kind of interesting, as a former health care person and
    a rehab person, I just see the value in that because of what
    they see. It is contact that they have, these folks have, they
    are living by themselves normally, a little more isolated, and
    they get to see things. They may recognize health changes, they
    may talk about other needs.
        And so my question for you really centers around that. We
    have heard from various witnesses in our review of the SNAP
    that every person's circumstances are different, and the best
    way to help a person is when you work with them to address
    their challenges from a holistic perspective. How does the
    personal connection, the person delivering the meals, better
    enable you to assist them with their needs beyond food
    assistance, and what sort of challenges are you able to
    recognize that one might not see if the groceries are simply
    left at the door? And anyone that would like to take that
    question on, I appreciate it.
        Mr. Faris. I would be happy to.
        Mr. Thompson. Mr. Faris.
        Mr. Faris. Congressman, thank you very much. Every
    situation is unique, and in the world of Meals-on-Wheels, we
    try to address each situation as uniquely as we can.
        The majority of the folks that we see are homebound,
    meaning they have difficulty getting out of the house easily.
    Some of them are able to take a parcel of food like you are
    talking about there in the box, and still able to do something
    with that, prepare their meals, some though, as I mentioned in
    my remarks about Emily, don't have the ability to stand for
    long and prepare that meal. So it all depends on the individual
    situation.
        We start out with having a case manager go out and take a
    look, and just a general observation as to what is going on in
    the house and what the person's needs are, and try to get our
    best assessment on that. It is followed up either by volunteers
    delivering the meals once they begin service, or it may be paid
    staff in some cases, but just ongoing observations, because
    things change. We are talking about a rapidly aging population,
    and things can change in the blink of an eye. Health can
    definitely turn when we least expect it.
        The volunteer checking on that person daily can observe
    that. Their cognitive skills may not be what they were. They
    may not be recognizing the person coming to the door like they
    were. Their appearance may have changed. And so we can get
    back.
        Chairman Conaway was asking about families. In cases where
    there are still families involved, we can pass that information
    onto them or other caregivers along the way, and hopefully
    there would be caregivers there.
        It could be a safety issue. There could be a smell of
    natural gas or something like that in the house. When you just
    have a box delivered to the door, that is not the exact same
    thing.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Leibman. If I could add, Congressman, the notion that
    charity helps to support the government programs is an
    important concept and it is an important partnership. But, it
    is the government programs that provide the kind of consistent,
    stable, and baseline support that these families need, and that
    charity alone could never be responsive enough. In fact, I am
    sure, as you are aware, the pantries that provide assistance to
    families do so on a very irregular basis, meaning that you may
    be able to come in for groceries on one day on a particular
    week, and then not again for another month.
        The Chairwoman. I have to cut you off there. Sorry.
        The chair recognizes Congresswoman DelBene.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to all the
    witnesses for being with us today. We really appreciate your
    time.
        I want to note, since we are discussing the needs of
    veterans as part of today's hearing, I recently was
    volunteering at one of the food banks in my district, at
    Hopelink, and in my district, 40 percent of food bank client
    households have at least one person currently serving or who
    previously served in the military. And this number goes up to
    near 58 percent in King County in Washington State, and at
    least 62 percent in Snohomish County. And as part of that,
    Madam Chair, I wanted to ask unanimous consent to insert into
    the record a letter from Food Lifeline, which is an
    organization fighting hunger in our district, that elaborates
    on this even more. Thank you.
        [The letter referred to is located on p. 599.]
        Ms. DelBene. I also wanted to go back to some of the
    discussion we have had on able-bodied adults without
    dependents, and the cliff that we see when folks are unable to
    find employment programs, or unable to find work. As we talked
    about earlier, nationwide the ABAWD cliff includes 60,000
    veterans, 60,000, and according to the Center on Budget and
    Policy Priorities, over 40 percent of this vulnerable
    population are women, close to \1/3\ are over the age of 40,
    about \1/2\ are white, \1/3\ are African American and \1/10\
    are Hispanic, and we know that Native American populations will
    also be hit hard.
        I helped introduce legislation, the SNAP Work Opportunities
    Act, that would provide an exception to the 3 month time limit
    for those looking for work in states that don't have the
    resources to offer them job training or workfare opportunities.
    As was noted, thanks to Ms. Leibman for pointing out, we have
    had a lot of work in my State of Washington on SNAP employment
    and training, education and training efforts, and we know that
    there are pilots now that we helped start in the last farm bill
    that will continue to hopefully come up with great ideas of how
    we can use SNAP E&T to again help folks not need SNAP programs
    anymore because they are able to find jobs that allow them to
    be self-sufficient.
        But I wanted to hear more broadly, from everyone on the
    panel today, about how the ABAWD cliff will hurt populations
    that you are representing. Ms. Leibman, you talked a little
    bit, but are there others who can tell us a little bit more
    about how this has affected some of the folks that you have
    been working with?
        Mr. Schneidewind. Well, we at AARP, at least, know that
    there are potentially one million people affected, and it is
    serious enough so that we are looking at it and believe it may
    need revision, and that work will go forward to take a careful
    look at it.
        Ms. DelBene. Go ahead, Mr. Faris.
        Mr. Faris. One of the challenges we have is that once a
    senior hits the poverty level, it is very hard for them to
    climb out of that poverty level, and work opportunities are not
    there. And we are talking about able-bodied seniors here, as
    opposed to those that are homebound. It is very, very difficult
    for those that are needing work at that age when it is not
    available to them.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you.
        Mr. Schneidewind, in your written testimony you ask for
    Congress to keep work requirements for SNAP at their current
    level. Can you elaborate on why you have made that suggestion
    in your written testimony?
        Mr. Schneidewind. Well, pretty clearly, right now among
    seniors, as I have said, the participation rate in SNAP is
    already quite low, in the 40 percent range versus 80 percent
    range of otherwise eligible people. So we think that any
    heightened work requirements would further reduce the
    participation. And really, it is critical to keep an increased
    participation because this is really a healthcare cost issue.
    If we can keep people in their homes through SNAP benefits,
    they may then avoid institutional care, which can cost Medicare
    and Medicaid almost three times, particularly Medicaid, three
    times the amount that you would have to pay to keep them in
    home. And that is where they want to be is at home. So we think
    that, really, the requirements should be liberalized rather
    than tightened, because this is a program that can save
    taxpayers money through reducing institutional care.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you. Thanks again to all of you.
        And I yield back, Madam Chair.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you.
        The chair recognizes Congressman Gibbs, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yes, thank you. Thank you all for coming to help
    enlighten us a bit with how these programs work and what the
    challenges and struggles are.
        I have really been hearing Ms. Tebbens talk about your
    experience, and thank you for your family's service. Can you
    elaborate on why some military families choose to live on the
    base versus off the base? Is there a difference in cost?
        Ms. Tebbens. Yes. When we first moved to Washington, I was
    under the impression that since the military is moving you, and
    the military has housing, that housing would just be a given.
    You would just show up at the housing office and they would
    tell you where you are living, and that would be it. But I came
    to find out that at most military bases there is actually quite
    an extensive wait list. It could be 6 months to a year, it
    could be even 2\1/2\ years; a very, very long wait.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
        Ms. Tebbens. So in those instances, you are forced to rent.
    The housing office does have binders and stuff there that you
    can look through of local properties and such. So when we
    started looking around, we knew how much we would be getting in
    BAH, and so we specifically chose an apartment that the monthly
    rent would be far enough under our BAH that the difference
    would also be able to cover our utilities so that it would kind
    of be flush. And also we were moving from Arizona, and so we
    kind of had to set up all of our military move stuff through
    the local Air Force base, which was really odd and difficult.
    And so when we moved up there, we actually had no idea that you
    are supposed to get up-front money before you move each time to
    help offset some of the costs. And because we didn't know to
    put in the proper paperwork for it, we didn't actually get any
    of that. So when we got the apartment, we actually had to ask
    my parents for a last-minute loan just to pay first month's
    rent and deposit.
        Mr. Gibbs. Okay. So we need to figure out what is going on
    there to help facilitate that.
        Ms. Tebbens. Right. Yes.
        Mr. Gibbs. And, Mr. Faris, through the multiple hearings we
    have had, we have talked quite a bit about the challenges in
    rural America versus the more populated urban areas when
    addressing hunger. People just normally assume that if you live
    in an urban area, you have more access to grocery stores in a
    close proximity. But, however, we have learned that not always
    might be the case. And can you maybe elaborate, the difference
    might be living here in Washington, D.C., versus living in my
    rural county back home in Ohio, some of the challenges you face
    as an organization, and what the similarities are fighting
    hunger, and then also the challenges in rural and urban?
        Mr. Faris. Yes, sir. First off, we know that seniors living
    in rural areas are going to be much poorer than others across
    the population. Their food insecurity is going to be far
    greater. And so that is one of the challenges that starts off
    in the rural areas. The other thing in the more rural areas is
    resources are not there, and whether it is local community
    programs or governmental programs. Transportation is first and
    foremost; how do we get access to the resources that are
    available to them. So that is very, very difficult in the rural
    area.
        One might say that in the urban area that there would be
    more resources. Hopefully there would be more resources.
    Hopefully there would be transportation. That is not always the
    case. It varies from community to community.
        In the frail, elderly, homebound, extremely needy
    population that we are working with, that are behind closed
    doors, we are not sure exactly what we are going to find, and
    that is the same whether it is in urban or rural, because many
    times, by the time we discover what is really behind that door,
    it is often too late.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
        Mr. Faris. So it is challenges in both spectrums.
        Mr. Gibbs. Right.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you.
        The gentlewoman from Arizona, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, is not a
    Member of the Subcommittee but has joined us today. Pursuant to
    Committee Rule XI(e), I have consulted with the Ranking Member,
    and we are pleased to welcome her to join in on the questioning
    of witnesses.
        So, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, 5 minutes. Thank you.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for
    allowing me to participate in this hearing. I thank the
    Committee for having this hearing.
        I represent a very large rural district in Arizona, and
    hunger and food insecurity are major, major problems. I visit
    the food banks in my district and the food pantries, and one of
    the things I have observed over the years is younger families
    with children coming in. They are underemployed, they are
    talking with other people there about where they can find
    another job to help them get off of assistance. I think often
    about hearing from a pediatrician several years ago who said
    that she has seen more infants with malnutrition than ever
    before because the parents are diluting formula. And I have a 7
    month old grandson and I know what a voracious appetite he has,
    and it really saddens me that parents are having to make that
    choice.
        And so my first question is for you, Ms. Leibman. I want to
    ask you about the Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance,
    FSSA Program, that was set up to help our military families. I
    know some of these families I am seeing are military families
    or veteran families, and that program is set to sunset. And so
    I have two questions. Why didn't that program work, and what
    are we doing to make sure that these families, who are
    struggling to put food on the table, have the assistance that
    they need?
        Ms. Leibman. When FSSA was created, it was created to serve
    more of a political purpose than a practical one, and it has
    been designed in its application process and approach to really
    deter people from accessing it. So you have to go through the
    chain of command in order to receive FSSA. And for many people
    who are currently serving in the military, not only is that
    simply not an option for them, they want to come in and speak
    to the commanding officer of the base.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Can you elaborate a little bit on that
    chain-of-command? Is it just one person or multiple people?
        Ms. Leibman. No, you must go all the way up the chain-of-
    command to the top ranking individual on the base. In part, you
    often have to do this because the individuals whom you normally
    would consult about support and assistance, the chaplain's
    office. In the Air Force it is the sergeant majors who serve
    more as that access, but they don't even know that there is a
    program called FSSA. Some of them don't even know that active
    duty military members can apply for SNAP. FSSA is very similar
    in its support to what SNAP offers, but accessing it can be
    very challenging for these active duty military members. So
    there could be ways to fix it. The benefit level could be
    adjusted so it really was truly serving the realistic needs of
    members in the military. The application process could be
    streamlined, but the recommendations that we have seen are to
    sunset it, and we understand that, but it means that making
    SNAP not only available, but making individuals on the base
    aware of the fact that SNAP is available to active duty
    military members much more imperative because it will become
    their lifeline for support, especially at the lower-ranking
    enlisted levels.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. And what is being done to streamline the
    SNAP process? I mean, that is going to be what they have to
    rely on.
        Ms. Leibman. Yes.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Are we educating them, are we
    streamlining that process to make it better for them?
        Ms. Leibman. There is certainly a great deal of outreach
    that is being done. I know that one of the reasons that for
    MAZON this became a real priority issue was to do some outreach
    in addressing the lack of awareness about SNAP and its
    availability. But, the most important fix that we see as
    essential here is the treatment of BAH and the way that it is
    treated for other Federal nutrition programs, that is, that it
    must be excluded, or the ability to access those benefits will
    be moot because nobody will qualify. It is an inconsistency and
    government policy and law that really needs to be corrected.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you. I have just about 30 seconds
    left. I want to ask really quickly, I represent 12 Tribes in my
    district, and food insecurity and hunger are huge issues for
    Tribes and can you just quickly, in about 20 seconds, tell me
    what you know is being done for Tribal communities?
        Ms. Leibman. Yes. I know that hunger and food insecurity
    among the Navaho Nation is at 75 percent, which is outrageous.
    There are programs and organizations working with government to
    try to address these problems that are not only systemic, but
    deeply rooted. And as many of these subpopulations are there,
    it is a complicated and challenging set of issues that have to
    be looked at and have to be addressed.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you. I thank the panel.
        I yield back. I thank the Chairwoman and Ranking Member for
    your courtesy.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you.
        The chair now recognizes Congressman Crawford, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Leibman, I want to go back to the question that Mrs.
    Kirkpatrick raised. If I understand this right, walk me through
    this, you are saying that a junior enlisted person would have
    to ultimately meet with the installation commander to get
    authority to participate in certain benefits?
        Ms. Leibman. They don't have to go all the way up the
    chain-of-command. What we have at learned anecdotally is that
    it is often the case, because those people that they normally
    would get information from and assistance from don't know, and
    so they check up the chain-of-command. And that individuals
    have concerns about who is going to know that they have sought
    out these benefits, and what that might do to their security
    clearance, and what it might do in terms of their treatment by
    their colleagues and by their superior officers.
        Mr. Crawford. Ms. Tebbens, did you experience anything like
    that?
        Ms. Tebbens. I actually never, in the 8\1/2\ years that I
    was affiliated with the Navy, I never even heard mention of
    that program. I actually only learned of it about a year ago
    when I initially started working with MAZON, but I have never
    heard of it, even through other spouses or anything. I didn't
    even know it existed.
        Mr. Crawford. So when you started to apply for programs
    like WIC, which you mentioned that you availed yourself of was
    that application made off the installation, or was there an
    office on the installation that could help you get those
    benefits?
        Ms. Tebbens. No, I went to our local WIC office, which was
    just a small office in our town in like a private office
    building----
        Mr. Crawford. Right. So it was administered by the county,
    so it wasn't--there was no installation liaison or anything
    like that?
        Ms. Tebbens. No. I know it can be different. Part of the
    problem is inconsistency between bases and where you are
    living, and at least in my experience where we were, when we
    went to the Navy Marine Corps Relief Society on the subbase in
    Bangor, all they really knew, and it might be different at
    other Navy Marine Corps offices, was just the Military Star
    credit card. That was the only advice they could give us.
        Mr. Crawford. Okay. Let me go a different direction here.
    You mentioned that you were on WIC for a period of time, and
    that once you improved your employment situation then you
    transitioned off of WIC.
        Ms. Tebbens. Yes.
        Mr. Crawford. Was that something that you just did on your
    own, or was there a requirement to re-certify your eligibility
    at any point in time?
        Ms. Tebbens. When we moved from the Kitsap Peninsula over
    to just north of Seattle, since we were switching WIC offices,
    every 6 weeks you get vouchers, so you have to go in, and I
    forget the timeframe for re-inputting all of your financials,
    and all of that.
        Mr. Crawford. It is kind of an ongoing certification
    process for WIC. Is that your----
        Ms. Tebbens. Correct. Yes, you are not like just given
    vouchers for the whole year. I think it is in 6 week increments
    and that might have changed from then, but it is very short
    increments of time you get the bundle, and then you keep having
    to go in and meet with them about various things.
        Mr. Crawford. Okay.
        Ms. Tebbens. When I found my full-time job, I was realizing
    that we weren't using as much of the voucher each time, so I
    just realized, I told them at my next meeting I don't need this
    program anymore.
        Mr. Crawford. Okay. Let me ask you this. I am a military
    brat, grew up on military installations, served in the military
    myself, and I know that at the time that I served, there was a
    thing called separate rations. So if you are an enlisted
    member, you would get a meal card, unless you were married or
    unless you were on a special duty where you couldn't access the
    chow hall at specific hours, so you would be given separate
    rats. Does anything like that exist now?
        Ms. Tebbens. The only thing that I know of is----
        Mr. Crawford. They might call it basic allowance for
    subsistence.
        Ms. Tebbens. Yes. Yes. So the BAS. It depends. If you are
    deployed then you don't get it because the ship is feeding you,
    but when you are back onshore, you do. So there were definitely
    times over the 8\1/2\ years where sometimes we had it and
    sometimes we didn't have it, just depending on what my
    husband's point in his career was.
        Mr. Crawford. I understand. Thank you. I appreciate you
    sharing your testimony.
        And, Madam Chair, I ask that you might consider maybe a
    joint hearing with this Subcommittee and Armed Services to
    address the nutritional issues that have been brought up in
    this hearing.
        The Chairwoman. Yes. Absolutely.
        Mr. Crawford. I yield back.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you.
        The chair recognizes Congresswoman Lujan Grisham, for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the
    panel.
        I appreciate you being here. We are going to have a joint
    colleague effort here because of the statements that my
    colleague from Arizona, Representative Kirkpatrick, in addition
    to my colleague from Arkansas, Representative Crawford. In New
    Mexico, we have permanent SNAP lines at the commissary on the
    Air Force base, because we have such high poverty rates and
    such high rates of other issues, that it is more commonplace
    than it should be. And it really speaks to a larger problem. We
    certainly want to make sure that folks who are entitled to
    those benefits get those benefits, and that we don't put the
    kind of barriers in place that those families are food-
    insecure. But, it speaks to a larger problem that we need those
    benefits for enlisted personnel in the military, and in so many
    other work environments in this country. And I really want to
    thank MAZON for working with so many New Mexico partners,
    including the Center on Law and Poverty, and Appleseed, and
    Road Runner Foodbank, because I state it all the time. I keep
    hoping that there is going to be a sooner-rather-than-later
    position from me here where I get to say that those rates are
    dramatically changing in my state, but we have some of the
    highest hunger and poverty rates in the country.
        And as a result, looking at different populations, we are
    now really struggling with the veteran population as a subset,
    and the high rate of food insecurity. The Road Runner Foodbank
    has told me that 26 percent of the clients that they are
    serving, contains at least one member of either serving or has
    served in the U.S. Military. In our state, the unemployment
    rate for post-9/11 veterans is nearing ten percent. This trend,
    unfortunately, is that it is growing, that we are not shrinking
    that. And while 50 percent of New Mexico veterans are employed
    after they exit, according to the Veterans Employment and
    Training Service, which is great, the average reported salary
    still makes a family of four eligible for SNAP. You highlighted
    in your testimony the number of military families that are,
    frankly, in danger of losing their SNAP benefits, and that you
    are expecting 60,000 veterans to lose their benefits because of
    the expiration of the work requirement waivers for able-bodied
    adults without dependents. I am very concerned about that very
    same thing, where New Mexico has a higher per capita average of
    veteran populations in our state and in my district. But,
    despite our severe economic issues in New Mexico, our Governor
    has not only chosen to reinstate the work requirements as of
    January 1, but is also planning to expand them now to include
    people aged 16 to 59, and parents of children over 13 years. I
    have no doubt that this is going to further exacerbate the
    problem that you have testified about, and it means that these
    families never get a chance to become whole. We are not really
    addressing that opportunity aspect, if you will, by making sure
    that their basic needs are met.
        Can you tell me what we can do here, as Members of
    Congress, to really think about the weight balances, because I
    don't think we do that very effectively, right? So, we want
    folks to get work opportunities, and we don't want being
    eligible for public benefits to create an environment where you
    are not succeeding and moving ahead. We don't want to create a
    requirement that makes someone choose between that job, or any
    job, or no job at all, and those benefits, and exacerbate these
    poverty issues and stigma issues. What can we do to create
    those balances more effectively, and recognize the populations
    that we really are hurting?
        Ms. Leibman. I think that one of the challenges of having
    to access and rely on government benefits is whether or not
    those benefits are enough to provide the kind of financial
    stability that you need to move your family out of poverty, to
    provide the kind of security that you need in order to get an
    education, get a well-paying job, the jobs that people can
    access that are readily available in many communities pay below
    a living wage, which means that people cannot get off both
    assistance and maintain the job. So the challenge of the
    limitations on how long you can be on benefits, what the
    benefits are actually paying you, plays into a system that
    doesn't provide adequate childcare or subsidized childcare, so
    both parents can't work. For households that are headed by
    single parents, particularly those headed by women, those
    challenges are exacerbated by other kinds of barriers to
    getting gainful employment. So the complexity of the interplay
    between these issues means that Congress needs to take a good
    hard look at securing the level of benefits at a rate that
    provides people with financial stability, and is a realistic
    safety net that allows them to get security and then move off
    of benefits. For those for whom gainful employment is no longer
    an option because they are either disabled or they are too
    senior to work, then we need to think about systems and how
    those play into other kinds of supports that allow people to
    live with dignity as they age, and they can provide themselves
    and their families with the kind of support that they need.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you.
        Mr. Schneidewind. Congresswoman, one of the things we are
    really concerned about at AARP is any attempt to expand
    eligibility requirements so they really negatively impact
    people above 50, there is some talk about raising eligibility
    to 59, and people in that age category have a much harder time
    finding new employment. That has been demonstrated. So any
    increase in the age requirement is going to be very harsh for
    those included.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you.
        The chair recognizes Congressman Benishek, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank
    the witnesses for being here, particularly you, Ms. Tebbens. I
    really congratulate you for the courage to be here today and
    talk about your story.
        Ms. Tebbens. Thank you.
        Mr. Benishek. I am a firm believer in public-private
    partnerships, and really believe that many of these nonprofit
    groups--such as you represent here today--are very helpful in
    knowing more about the individual than the Federal Government
    does, and able to better figure out the milieu in which that
    individual lives, and how to best help the people that you are
    serving. I believe that leveraging Federal dollars to help
    people like you, and other groups too, is really the best way
    to help people.
        I represent the northern half of Michigan, which is a very
    rural area. It is very-low-income. We have a lot of veterans.
    We have a lot of seniors. The things we are talking about here
    today at this Subcommittee are very pertinent to where I live.
    And I am also on the VA Committee. I am actually the
    Subcommittee Chairman for Health. And I would like to talk
    about our veterans a little bit.
        Private organizations working to help feed veterans could
    use a little help from the VA. And I would like to learn from
    each of the representatives of the organizations how they work
    with the VA currently, and what can be done either with SNAP or
    with the VA to make this easier for you all to help them.
        Ms. Leibman, would you start in trying to address that?
        Ms. Leibman. Absolutely. We have done a webinar training
    for VA social workers and caseworkers, and we are about to do
    another one. We have been working with the VA to help them
    communicate with and partner with the USDA, especially because
    there is so much overlap between the issues of nutrition and
    health, and the access points for many veterans into the system
    have to do with their disabling conditions and/or their health
    conditions, and to make certain that those health professionals
    understand that there are resources available to help support
    the nutrition of those vets that are coming to them. The VA
    alone can't resolve all of these challenges, and I think that
    is why we are here to look to Congress to make certain that
    there is strong direction here that looks to supporting those
    institutions and those government programs that are designed to
    provide them with adequate nutrition benefits, and that lies
    here with Congress.
        Mr. Benishek. Mr. Faris, do you have any input on my
    question that you----
        Mr. Faris. The relationship with the VA can always be
    improved. This past year, there was something like 500,000
    veterans that were served by Meals-on-Wheels programs.
    Depending on where the program is located, it will be higher
    and lower. We are located just south of Dallas and Fort Worth.
        Mr. Benishek. Does the VA help you then? Does the VA
    contribute to the funding of this?
        Mr. Faris. No, sir. No.
        Mr. Benishek. Mr. Schneidewind, do you have any comment?
        Mr. Schneidewind. Well, I am glad you raised the issue of
    public-private partnerships because one of the things that we
    have tried to encourage is the increased uptake of fresh fruits
    and vegetables, and we have this AARP Foundation working with
    not only local farmers' markets, but food retails to pilot
    programs where the individual citizen or recipient of SNAP
    could go in and get private incentives, in effect, to purchase
    more fresh fruits and vegetables from local vendors and also
    supermarkets. And we have had great success with that. And what
    we are looking toward is to encourage the private-sector to
    help us improve the health of recipients through increased use
    of fresh fruits and vegetables. So we think that has a lot of
    potential to improve health over long term and utilize the
    private-sector.
        Mr. Benishek. Mr. Faris, I would like to also ask you
    another question. We just have a minute left, or \1/2\ a
    minute. My district is very rural. Is your area rural as well?
    We have a lot of difficulty with elderlies, people living
    remotely, how does that work?
        Mr. Faris. Yes, sir. We have roughly a 1,700 mile\2\
    service area where I am. Approximately \1/2\ of it is suburban,
    the other \1/2\ is extremely rural. And it is almost like a
    step back in time when you go down some of those county roads
    out there, and it is extremely difficult. Some of the more
    rural routes we have, it may take an 1\1/2\ to 2 hours to get
    to some of those, compared to Arizona or New Mexico, ours is a
    very small expanse compared to there, but it is quite
    difficult, adds to the cost, and it is the challenge.
        Mr. Benishek. Thank you. I am out of time.
        Thanks, Madam Chair.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you.
        The chair recognizes Congressman Abraham, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank the
    witnesses for being here.
        Ms. Leibman, I will direct this question to you, but, Ms.
    Tebbens, you can surely jump in with your experience.
        As you recall, the 2014 Farm Bill did include some funding
    upon existing SNAP employment and training programs, and to
    test some new strategies to determine the, I guess, the most
    effective ways to help SNAP recipients gain and retain
    employment that leads to self-sufficiency. And I was pleased to
    see that the Washington Department of Social and Health
    Services was awarded a grant through this pilot program to help
    individuals with significant barriers, including veterans,
    through comprehensive case management and work-based learning
    opportunities. And many of these jobs that these men and women
    performed overseas are very difficult, we know that, and they
    are very different from the employment opportunities that we
    have here at home. What can you tell us about the unique nature
    of the employment challenges some of our veterans face?
        Ms. Leibman. I think that it is important when we think
    about this question and these issues to bear in mind that the
    age range of veterans is extraordinary. It is not only
    individuals who have just demobilized and are in their
    twenties, but it is also people who served years ago and there
    are categories as veterans because they served our country
    honorably and are now in their fifties or sixties. And as my
    colleagues here from AARP and Meals-on-Wheels testified, the
    employment opportunities and access points for individuals who
    are in their fifties is very challenging. So you have a
    population that is not homogeneous, you have a population that
    for those who are younger are getting demobilized, they are
    getting demobilized in locations that may be unfamiliar to
    them, they may not be able to go home, they may not have family
    support systems. They may be in situations where they are
    getting retained for jobs and there are no opportunities, or
    those opportunities are being filled by people other than
    veterans. And there are the same kinds of challenges for those
    who have other kinds of employment challenges that exist for
    veterans as well. But it is complicated by the fact that they
    have been overseas at some period of time in their lives, or
    have been on-base for some period of time and now coming back
    into civilian population.
        Mr. Abraham. Okay, thank you.
        Ms. Tebbens, do you have anything to add to that?
        Ms. Tebbens. In terms of veteran employment, I am not
    really sure, but in terms of spouse employment, I know it can
    be really difficult, especially if you are in a position like I
    was as a teacher, or I have a friend who is a lawyer, or many
    other friends who are teachers or maybe hair stylists, anything
    that requires a license from the state, when you move every 3
    years, it can be very difficult if you have already had a
    really career going or a client base, or anything like that,
    and then you up and move, a lot of times you are not only
    starting over, but if your new state does not recognize that
    license, which is also often the case, it can be a huge
    impediment.
        Mr. Abraham. You have to retake the exam, or something like
    that.
        Ms. Tebbens. Yes, retake the exam or other things, which
    can also be very expensive and very difficult when you are also
    trying to situate your children in new schools and things like
    that. And, for instance, where we moved to, the Kitsap
    Peninsula, which is right across from Seattle, is very small
    and often very rural, and there is not a lot of opportunity.
    When we moved across to Everett, I was able to get a really,
    really excellent job and then we were fine, but I would have
    had to commute over to Seattle while we were living in the
    Kitsap Peninsula, which was difficult because we had one
    vehicle and a newborn. And that is about an hour away.
        Mr. Abraham. Okay.
        Ms. Tebbens. Yes.
        Mr. Abraham. And, Ms. Leibman, one last question.
        Ms. Leibman. Yes.
        Mr. Abraham. If we run out of time, you can certainly reach
    out to me afterwards. Going through this child nutrition
    reauthorization, we have been successful in identifying ways to
    streamline and improve child hunger programs, with the goal to
    make them more effective and more efficient. We have a child
    nutrition safety net that makes meals available during the
    summer and after school to all children who are eligible. What
    recommendations would you identify to improve and streamline
    these hunger programs such as SNAP for our seniors and veterans
    to make them more efficient, effective in reaching and
    providing services for our hungry seniors and our hungry
    families?
        Ms. Tebbens. In terms of the military, I would just say
    that even just informing military members that they might be
    eligible for any of the programs is really, really important.
    And then in regards to SNAP, removing the BAH component like
    they do with the WIC Program. And, last week, I just wanted to
    check and see, if I was in this same exact situation I was when
    I was pregnant, if I reconfigured it for now with SNAP what we
    would get, and if I omitted the BAH and also zeroed out all of
    the costs for housing, it would still only be $66 a month that
    we would be getting. So not a huge amount of money.
        Mr. Abraham. Thank you.
        I am out of time, Madam Chair. Thank you.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you.
        The chair recognizes Congressman Yoho, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you all
    being here. This will be the last questioning.
        And I come from the State of Florida, and as you probably
    are well aware, we are the third largest in the country. I live
    in a district that has the second largest VA community in the
    country. It has over 121,000. People joke that Florida is the
    state of the newlywed or nearly dead. I don't know how you want
    to take that, but we serve a large area. We have rural and we
    have also a lot of military veterans, as I have talked about,
    both retired and active. And we also have checked with our
    office for this meeting and we get one to two inquiries about
    every other month for food assistance. And, of course, we
    automatically deal with them. And I can relate to G.T. Thompson
    because we have been on a WIC Program, my wife and I, about 100
    years ago in our youth, and I know the importance of those.
        And, Ms. Leibman, you were talking about, there are 2,000
    to 22,000 veterans estimated of needing food assistance, and I
    was looking at the numbers in here, and my question is why has
    the participation been so low? And I know we have covered a lot
    of that, but again, I would like to hear your answers of why
    you think it is so low. Is it underreporting?
        Ms. Leibman. Well, the 2,000 to 22,000 figure is in active
    duty, that is the estimate of the currently serving that are on
    SNAP.
        Mr. Yoho. Okay.
        Ms. Leibman. And so one of the things that we saw as a
    challenge when we began this work was that it is very difficult
    to get complete and accurate data, and that is why you could
    have a span of numbers that is quite that large, and----
        Mr. Yoho. Okay. I want to cut you off there. And as I did
    your numbers here, and you went to the Blue Star Survey, which
    I have pulled up here, when I look at the numbers it said it
    was, seven percent of the 2015 reported, more than seven
    percent responding active duty military and spouses face food
    insecurity. And if I take that number of the 19,455 active
    duty, that comes down to 1,900--well, 1,362 individuals. And I
    guess my question is, is this a program that we need to expand
    on a Federal bureaucracy, and increase the bureaucracy, or is
    it simpler to go into the military and say you need to pay
    these people more?
        Ms. Leibman. So the----
        Mr. Yoho. And I want to go to Ms. Tebbens after this.
        Ms. Leibman. Far be it from me to suggest that the military
    should not pay people more money. I do think that that would be
    an important aspect of the entire picture here. But in the
    interim, until that would happen, and for those people for whom
    those additional funds would not be adequate enough to cover
    their family's needs, the military does have a responsibility
    to make sure that its members are aware of and given access to
    the Federal programs that the rest of America accesses and
    enjoys as a part of our rights as citizens to be relying on our
    government to help us when we are vulnerable. And the challenge
    is that the numbers do not tell the story yet because we do not
    have accurate and complete numbers.
        Mr. Yoho. I have lost my microphone. I agree with that,
    that we need to make sure people are getting the assistance
    they need, but I don't want to go down the road of increasing
    and growing a government program when there is a simpler
    solution. The government is not always the answer in this.
        Ms. Tebbens, in your experience, and you alluded to this
    that you guys moved how many times?
        Ms. Tebbens. Gosh, three different duty stations.
        Mr. Yoho. In how long, 8 years?
        Ms. Tebbens. Yes.
        Mr. Yoho. All right, three different duty stations. And I
    understand the disruption of the workforce. And you are a
    school teacher, correct?
        Ms. Tebbens. Yes, I was, yes.
        Mr. Yoho. Okay. And so each time you move, I understand
    there is a transition period that you have to go through, and
    in dealing with what you were talking about, cosmetology, or
    any other field, if you are not licensed in that state, we have
    addressed that and we have passed legislation to look at
    reciprocity between the states, and I think that is something
    that can solve this.
        In your active duty and your--or your husband, as a
    military family did you get a food allowance, because I know in
    the Coast Guard they get about $350 per month in food
    allowance? Did you have that, and does it go up with the size
    of your family?
        Ms. Tebbens. Yes. I don't recall if it increases with the
    size of the family. What I do remember about the BAS allowance
    is that it really hinges more on the active duty person and
    where they are in terms of being currently stationed. So, for
    instance, if my husband was around and just working on the
    base, we might get a few hundred dollars a month, let's say,
    but then if he is deployed, the military is looking at it as,
    ``Well, the galley on the ship is feeding him,'' so because it
    is not really about the whole family, it is more focused on the
    active duty member. And so when they are gone for 7 months on a
    carrier and that is removed, then that could be a couple of
    hundred dollars out of the larger family.
        Mr. Yoho. Okay. And I appreciate you guys coming here
    because those are issues that we need to address. We just want
    to make sure we do it the most efficient way to serve the
    families of our military. And I am sorry I didn't have time to
    go to the elderly, since I am one now, but I appreciate you all
    being here.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you.
        I appreciate the panel's help in understanding the
    challenges faced by seniors, veterans, and active military
    members. They are, indeed, special populations that we must
    consider as we look at ways to strengthen SNAP and the other
    food assistance programs.
        You have certainly given us plenty to think about as we
    continue to look at the past, present, and future of SNAP. No
    program is perfect, we understand, and we can always do better.
        Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
    hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
    additional material and supplementary written responses from
    the witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
        This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition
    Subcommittee, is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
     Submitted Letter by Hon. Vicky Hartzler, a Representative in Congress
       from Missouri; on Behalf of Roger P. Allison, Vietnam Veteran and
                Executive Director, Missouri Rural Crisis Center
    January 6, 2016

      Hon. Vicky Hartzler,
      Member of Congress,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Representative Hartzler,

        I am writing today on behalf of The Missouri Rural Crisis Center
    (MRCC) regarding the upcoming hearing of the House Agriculture
    Subcommittee on Nutrition related to the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP) and special populations on January 12th. We
    know that this hearing has not yet been made public, but we hope that
    you will be able to attend.
        MRCC is a statewide farm and rural organization with over 5,000
    member families across the great state of Missouri. For 3 decades we
    have worked to improve the lives of family farmers and rural families
    whose communities have historically depended upon agriculture and small
    businesses as their economic motor. With decreasing numbers of farmers
    and declining economies in rural communities, our programs have been
    crucial in rural MO.
        Since 1986, one of MRCC's top priorities has been to address food
    and nutrition needs of rural families through our Rural Food
    Cooperative Program that helps provide limited resource families with
    access to fresh fruit and vegetables, bread, canned goods, staples and
    Missouri family farm raised meat. Literally tens of thousands of rural
    Missourians have participated in this program since its inception, many
    of whom are senior citizens and veterans. This year we distributed over
    200,000 pounds of food to rural families.
        MRCC sees first-hand every single month how the issues of food
    insecurity and hunger affect rural Missouri families. In your
    Congressional district, we operate MRCC Food Co-op Programs in Morgan
    County, Pettis County and Randolph County. In this year alone, over
    1,500 people in those counties relied on our program to meet their food
    needs. Even with our Food Co-op program, many families still need to
    rely on the food stamp program in order to meet their basic nutritional
    needs. More and more, Missourians are faced with having to make
    decisions each month about whether to buy their medications or to buy
    food. This is just wrong.
        Although MRCC and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
    have helped alleviate hunger in rural Missouri by supplementing the
    food budgets of thousands of limited-income households, for many rural
    households, food insecurity remains a serious problem in rural
    Missouri. In 2014 USDA reported that Missouri was the second worse
    state for food security among is citizens. 17% of Missourians reported
    skipping meals because of lack of money.
        Because rural communities have higher rates of senior citizens and
    veterans, these are the people who are often the most impacted by lack
    of adequate food and economic opportunity in their local communities.
    They are also the people who frequently step up to help their fellow
    Missourians. In Sedalia, our Food Co-op Program depends on people like
    Jerry and Rich and James who are all veterans who not only participate
    in the program, but who have also volunteered every month for 10 years
    to help distribute food to people in their community. Our Food Co-op in
    Gravois Mills was started by Missouri Veterans and has been held in the
    local VFW every month since 1988.
        When times are tough, we count on veterans. They were there for us
    as Americans when they served our country, and now we should be there
    for them.
        This is why we are respectfully asking that you attend the House
    Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition Hearing on the Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and special populations on January
    12th.
        We are very pleased to learn that Abby Leibman from MAZON: A Jewish
    Response to Hunger will be testifying at the hearing about veterans and
    hunger. MAZON has been great partner in MRCC's anti-rural hunger work,
    so we hope that it will be possible for you to attend the hearing.
        Thank you for your time and consideration on this vitally important
    issue.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Roger P. Allison,
    Vietnam Veteran & Executive Director, Missouri Rural Crisis Center.
                                     ______

    Submitted statement by Hon. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Representative in
     Congress from New Mexico; on Behalf of New Mexico Association of Food
                                     Banks
        New Mexico is the 5th largest state in terms of land mass (121,589
    miles\2\). In contrast, we are 36th in population (with a population of
    just over 2,000,000). That translates to just over 17 people per square
    mile.
        Outside of the interstate corridors (I-25, I-40 and I-10), it is
    not uncommon to have a 40 to 60 mile drive to reach a full service
    grocery store or basic services like health care facilities (and in
    some areas the drive is even longer). Catron County, located in western
    New Mexico, doesn't have a single grocery store in the entire county.
    These factors result in a large number of ``food deserts'' around the
    state. Couple the ``food deserts'' with the fact that New Mexico is an
    actual desert, with limited large scale agriculture, and you can see
    the scope of our food acquisition and distribution challenge.
        In addition, the large geographic area and sparse population
    creates ``resource deserts'' with large sections of the population
    having limited access to medical facilities and other support
    resources.
        Our next challenge is limited employment options, including, but
    not limited to:

              Very few corporate employment bases--those that do exist are
            mainly on the I-25 corridor.
              A large number of jobs that traditionally pay higher wages
            are in cyclical industries like mining, oil & gas, and
            agriculture. This can result in seasonal layoffs or sudden
            increases in unemployment which places a great strain on
            support network resources (in recent years, there was a mining
            layoff in southern New Mexico that resulted in more than 20% of
            the workforce facing immediate unemployment).

        In regard to special populations, many of the people we serve are
    either elderly or military veterans (and in many cases both). 21% of
    the clients we serve are over the age of 60, and 26% of our clients
    report having at least one member that is serving or has served in the
    military.
        Our military veterans face challenges from limited employment
    opportunities, restricted or no access to full scale mental health
    services, and transportation challenges for those coping with physical
    disabilities. Our member food bank serves the thousands of veterans
    that need assistance through our statewide network of partner agencies
    (food pantries, soup kitchens, community centers, shelters, senior
    centers, mobile pantries and other meal provision programs). But the
    nonprofit emergency food sector cannot meet the full need of all those
    needing food assistance and support services. In addition to continued
    access to food programs like SNAP, our veterans need access to
    employment opportunities, health care and physical therapy, and mental
    health care programs. When those systems are in place to serve the
    needs of veterans, we see so many success stories like Michael.
        Michael is a Vietnam-era U.S. Marine Corps veteran and one of our
    former clients whom we met at the New Mexico Veterans' Integration
    Center (VIC) recently. Ten years ago, Michael was living homeless in
    Albuquerque when VIC first opened its doors.
        ``I was beyond fortunate to find them when I did,'' Michael told
    us. ``I just didn't know my odds of making it for much longer, no job,
    no steady food.'' Once Michael settled into their short-term housing
    program, Michael said he dove into earning some money to save with
    VIC's food distribution program while he built up cooking skills and
    looked for a steadier place to live. A few years later, Michael found
    that steady place to live right in Albuquerque with enough money saved
    up and a stable position to continue supporting himself.
        Yet, Michael was filled with gratitude for his time with VIC and to
    this day, he volunteers at VIC 4 days per week, starting each of those
    shifts by 7:35 in the morning.
        ``This place and what the food bank does to make the food possible
    here makes a great impact,'' Michael reflected with us. ``To go from
    homeless to having a place of your own just makes me want to help my
    fellow vets all the more.'' With tears in his eyes, Michael looked
    across the room and thanked everyone who helped him not only get the
    food he needed for nourishment. He also thanked other VIC staff who
    assisted him in securing his full Social Security and veteran's
    benefits which have helped him greatly arrive at where he is now.
        Michael's story is just one of thousands from across New Mexico. We
    urge the Committee Members to continue their efforts to identify the
    needs of special populations like military families and veterans and to
    support food programs and related services that provide essential
    support to those populations.
        Thank you for this opportunity to tell you about New Mexico, and
    thank you for the time and energy that you are giving to protect the
    interests of some of our most vulnerable people.
                                     ______

    Submitted Letter by Hon. Suzan K. DelBene, a Representative in Congress
       from Washington; on Behalf of Katharine Ryan, Policy and Research
                             Manager, Food Lifeline
    January 12, 2016

        Chairman Conaway, Members of the House Committee on Agriculture:

        Washington State is one of our country's most abundant agricultural
    areas. We grow quality apples and onions that are known around the
    world. We also have a tremendous number of smaller farms, farmers'
    markets and farm stands that create opportunities for access to those
    healthy, fresh items.
        At Food Lifeline, we focus on sourcing food from farmers,
    manufacturers, and grocery retailers in our state, knowing that a
    tremendous amount of food in our country goes to waste. Unfortunately,
    despite these efforts we know that in Western Washington one in seven
    people is hungry, and even more kids--1 in 5--are unsure where their
    next meal will come from sometime during the year. Each year the food
    pantry, meal program and shelter agencies we work with serve more than
    700,000 unique individuals, many of whom also rely on programs like
    SNAP to get closer to making their food budget ends meet.
        Of those clients we serve, we know that 17% of them are seniors. We
    also know that nearly 40% of the households our agencies serve have at
    least one person currently or previously serving in the military. In
    King and Snohomish Counties, where a 40% of our state's population is
    located those rates are 58% and 62%, respectively. For those households
    with either a veteran or someone currently serving, 61% rely on SNAP to
    help feed their family.
        These groups face unique challenges, particularly in getting their
    food needs met. Food is one pivotal, grounding piece of a much larger
    puzzle that these individuals and families are trying to put together.
    Food should not be one of the things they should be worried about
    having enough of. Our shared values as Americans include taking care of
    those who are most vulnerable, including children and seniors, but also
    recognizing and taking care of our veterans who have served our
    country. Enough food on the table should be one of the things that
    should not be on their list of worries, concerns, and fears.
    Meals Provided by Hunger Safety Net

        The charitable food system continues to distribute record amounts
    of food, but we cannot close the gap alone. In western Washington, SNAP
    provided an estimated 66% of meals in the hunger safety net in 2014.
    Other Federal programs such as WIC, school and summer meals were 18%,
    and our vast network of agencies provided 16%. SNAP is a lynch pin in
    the hunger safety net, one that the rest of us do the best we can to
    work around and fill in the gaps.
        Food Lifeline supports efforts to bolster SNAP benefits, and to
    increase the reach of the program as far as possible, to help as many
    as possible. Seniors and veterans are a huge part of the client
    population we serve, and we anticipate those numbers only increasing,
    moving forward.
        Thank you for holding a hearing on such an important topic, and we
    hope the Committee will take action to ensure that these key
    populations don't have to worry about going hungry again.
                Sincerely,

    Katharine Ryan,
    Policy and Research Manager,
    Food Lifeline.
                                     ______

    Submitted Letter by Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick, a Representative in Congress
        from Arizona; on Behalf of Angie B. Rodgers, President and Chief
              Executive Officer, Association of Arizona Food Banks
    January 14, 2016

      Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick,
      House Agriculture Committee,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Representative Kirkpatrick:

        As the Association of Arizona Food Banks representing our five
    member food banks feeding hungry Arizonans across the state, we are
    pleased to submit comments regarding the impact of food insecurity on
    veterans and military families. As the state with the third highest
    rate of food insecurity among children, we remain particularly
    concerned about military families with children. Thank you for hosting
    a Subcommittee hearing on Tuesday, January 12, 2016 to hear about SNAP
    and special populations.
        On an average, our member food banks serve approximately 128,000
    individuals each week. This includes children, seniors, disabled and
    working individuals, active service members and veterans. Our five
    members collectively serve every county in Arizona reaching households
    in need at 1,200 locations. We continue to see high levels of demand at
    our food banks and pantries and Arizona's unemployment rate remains at
    a stubborn 6.0% tied with Alabama and Mississippi for the 8th highest
    rate in the country.
        In the Hunger in America 2014: State Report for Arizona, client
    surveys reported that 23% of households have someone currently serving
    or has formerly served in the Armed Forces, military reserve or
    national guard. In 2016, our members are reporting that nearly 3% of
    the clients they serve are active duty military. For example, the
    Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona in Tucson estimates they served
    6,300 individuals with veteran and military services. Desert Mission
    Food Bank in Phoenix served an estimated 1,076 veterans and 22% of
    these were over the age of 65. The Yuma Community Food Bank is just 25
    miles from the Yuma Proving Grounds in a community with an unemployment
    rate of 20%.
        Many military families are too proud to access government benefits.
    For some, military housing subsidies may prevent them from receiving
    SNAP. Our servicemen and women deserve better. They are continuously
    focused on protecting our country and should not have to simultaneously
    be concerned about where their next meal is coming from. We urge you to
    take action to improve policies that will ensure our military and
    veteran neighbors and their families are well fed.
        Again, thank you for your attention and please contact me if you
    have additional questions.
                Sincerely,
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Angie B. Rodgers,
    President and CEO.
                                     ______

           Submitted Briefing by Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank
    Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank Legislative Briefing
    SNAP Eligibility for Low-income Military Families
    House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Nutrition, SNAP and
            Special Populations
    About the Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank
        The San Diego Food Bank distributes food directly to people in need
    at 168 distribution sites throughout San Diego County every month. In
    addition, the Food Bank provides food to more than 400 nonprofits that
    operate feeding programs in communities throughout the county. These
    nonprofit partners collect food from our 80,000\2\ warehouse in
    Miramar and then distribute the food through food pantries, soup
    kitchens, shelters, low-income daycare centers, senior centers,
    churches, schools, and care centers for the elderly and disabled.
    Serving Low-Income Military Families
        Last year, the Food Bank served more than 28,000 low-income
    veterans, active-duty military personnel, and their dependents every
    month. For many low-income military families, San Diego's high cost of
    living makes it difficult to put nutritious food on the table. These
    families struggle with our region's high rent, utilities, and food
    prices. In addition, military spouses have an unemployment rate of
    nearly 30% which is due in part to frequent relocation. Nationally, 25%
    of the nation's total active-duty and reserve personnel receive food
    assistance from food pantries and charitable programs across the
    country. In San Diego County, the Food Bank distributed nearly 500,000
    pounds of food to low-income military families last year.
    The San Diego Food Bank Advocates for SNAP Eligibility for Low-Income
            Military Families
        Food insecurity among low-income, active-duty and veteran families
    is a serious yet hidden problem. Roughly 95,000 active-duty military
    service members are stationed in San Diego County. While there are
    nonprofit food distributions solely for active duty and veteran
    families offered in San Diego and nationwide, this private assistance
    is not enough.
        SNAP, known as CalFresh in California, is a Federal food assistance
    program that provides a monthly benefit for food purchases via a debit-
    like card to low-income households. Several factors, including
    household size and income, determine SNAP eligibility and benefit
    level. The USDA estimates that every dollar of CalFresh/SNAP
    expenditures generates $1.79 in economic activity.
        Some military service members, particularly more junior members of
    the military with dependents, may qualify for SNAP. Military service
    members who live on base receive their housing as an in-kind payment,
    and this in-kind payment does not count towards their income for the
    purposes of determining SNAP eligibility and benefits. However, the
    Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) that military households living off
    base receive is counted, creating a disparity between service members
    who live on versus off base. BAH appears on a service member's paystub
    (LES), but is not counted as income for Federal tax purposes.
        From 2003-2011, California did not count BAH as income for the
    purposes of SNAP eligibility. However, the state was instructed by USDA
    that it must count BAH as income. In interviews and surveys of active
    duty military households coming to nonprofit food distributions,
    households who did apply for SNAP after enlisting typically cite their
    BAH as the factor that pushed them over the income eligibility line. It
    is unknown how many service members currently receive SNAP because
    military status is not required data when applying.
        No military family should go hungry. The Jacobs & Cushman San Diego
    Food Bank advocates for the Basic Allowance for Housing to no longer be
    counted as income when calculating the eligibility and benefits level
    of military families for SNAP.
    TEFAP Serves Low-Income Military Families
        The Food Bank provides food assistance to low-income military
    families through the USDA's TEFAP (The Emergency Food Assistance
    Program) which serves every zip code in San Diego County--at more than
    90 distribution sites every month.
        Three of these distribution sites serve low-income military
    families in need of monthly food assistance.

        On average, more than 4,100 military personnel and their dependents
    receive support from the Food Bank at TEFAP distributions every month
    in Miramar, Tierrasanta, and Oceanside.
    Recent Data on Low-Income Military Families
       Military families spent $103.6 million in Food Stamps last
            year at commissaries.

       The unemployment rate for military spouses aged 18 to 24 is
            30%.

       Frequent relocation makes it difficult for military spouses
            to secure employment.

       Base pay for a new soldier with a family is roughly $20,000,
            excluding housing and food allowances.

    Pounds Distributed to Low-Income Military Families by the San Diego Food
                                      Bank
                                   FY 2014-15
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Pounds of Food Distributed
      Nonprofit Military Distribution Partner             2014-2015
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Brother Benno-Camp Pendleton                          10,313
                             Embrace                             975
    Jewish Family Service of San Diego                        18,451
                                    Ladle Fellowship          39,156
                    Navy Wives Food Locker                   130,658
        Military Outreach Ministries                         119,731
     San Diego Armed Services (YMCA)                         121,095
        San Diego USO Airport Center                          14,451
          Veterans Village San Diego                          15,092
                                               -----------------------------
      Total...................................               469,922
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Faces of Hunger in San Diego County
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program

              Families receiving food on TEFAP face short-term economic
            hardship. Many households, including San Diego military
            households, have at least one working adult but struggle to put
            food on the table.

                         TEFAP Income Guidelines 2015 **
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Max. Household Income: 150%
                  Household size:                            FPL
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   1                         $17,505
                                   2                         $23,595
                                   3                         $29,685
                                   +             + $6,090 per person
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ** This program serves households living below 130% of the FPL.

    Quotes from Low-Income San Diego Military Parents
              ``I don't know what we'd do without the San Diego Food Bank.
            I would be forced to feed my children top ramen, noodle soup,
            rice and pasta which aren't nutritious.''
                                                              Edna McCurdy.

              ``People think that military families are completely taken
            care of, but we are just getting by. I've found it's really
            difficult to get a job as a military spouse. When employers
            interview me, they ask why I move around all the time. They
            ask, `Why were you here for a year, and here for 2 years, and
            here for only 6 months?' Forget having a stable career as a
            military spouse.''
                                                            Ashley Padgett.

              ``I'm very proud to serve, and the San Diego Food Bank helps
            my family so it's one less thing I have to worry about when I
            am away overseas.''
                                                              Bryan Wilson.

        For more information contact:

      Chris Carter, Vice President of Communications,
      Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank,
      ccarter@sandiegofoodbank.org D 858-863-5131.
    Edna's Story
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        On a crisp, sunny morning in the San Diego neighborhood of
    Tierrasanta, Edna McCurdy, a young mother of three, holds her 1 year
    old son as she stands in line for food assistance at the Food Bank's
    food distribution for low-income military families.
        ``I came out here today to get help from the San Diego Food Bank.
    We were transferred here from South Carolina a month ago, and we were
    shocked by the high prices. The cost of living is extremely high in San
    Diego. When we moved here, the Navy increased the housing allotment to
    cover the extra rent, but it doesn't cover food. When we moved from
    South Carolina to San Diego they increased our Basic Housing Allowance
    but they do not increase my husband's pay,'' explains Edna.
        Edna's husband, Duane, is an EN3 Petty Officer Second Class in the
    Navy and works as an engine mechanic. They have three children. ``My
    youngest is Landon. He's 1 year old. Hunter is 4 years old, and my
    oldest is Autumn. She's 7 and in the first grade,'' beams Edna as she
    smiles at Landon.
        This is Edna's second time receiving help from the Food Bank. ``The
    first time I came was last month because the only thing I had in the
    kitchen was a little bit of meat that my neighbor gave me. My husband
    was on deployment, and my neighbor suggested that I get help from the
    Food Bank, so I came and got enough food to get us through to pay
    day,'' explains Edna.
        ``Despite the increased cost of rent for housing and the price of
    food out here, my husband's pay doesn't go up, so we deal with what
    we're given, and the Food Bank helps us a lot. I still have car
    payments and my car insurance also increased when we moved out here,''
    says Edna.

        ``I don't know what we'd do without the San Diego Food Bank,''
    explains Edna. ``I would be forced to feed my children top ramen,
    noodle soup, rice and pasta which isn't nutritious. The food from the
    Food Bank that we receive is nutritious, well-rounded and meets my
    children's dietary needs--the meats, the whole grains, the fruits and
    vegetables. It all helps so much because we can't afford to buy them at
    the supermarket,'' explains Edna.

        ``My kids love the fresh produce and fruit that we get from the
    Food Bank. Back home in South Caroline we used to have a garden where
    we grew fresh vegetables, but you can't do that here in San Diego. I
    used to grow watermelon, cantaloupe, bell peppers, zucchini, squash,
    broccoli, potatoes and corn. My kids would help me, and it was a great
    activity that they loved doing. I can't do that here. There's just no
    room and there are rules about digging where we rent,'' says Edna.
        ``We love coming to this distribution site because we wait in the
    park for our number to be called, and the children get to play in the
    playground, and I can to meet other military moms which is great for me
    since we are new to San Diego.''
        Edna walks through the food line and she receives tomatoes,
    asparagus, bell peppers, zucchini, apples, oranges, canned soup, canned
    meats, canned vegetables, cereal, fruit juice, bread, oatmeal, and
    rice. As she receives the food, Edna explains how much the assistance
    helps her family.
        ``The donations help us out a lot, especially with a family of five
    living on a limited budget. The Food Bank truly is a blessing for us.
    We are thankful for all of the donations,'' says Edna as she puts the
    last bag of groceries in her car.
                                     ______

     Submitted Statement by Kristen Aster, Manager, Hunger Advocacy Network
        Thank you to the Members of the Committee for the opportunity to
    submit the following written statement for this important hearing on
    special populations and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP)
    program.
        The Hunger Advocacy Network (HAN) is a collaborative of
    organizations, including human service agencies, food banks, and
    advocacy organizations, working to address hunger in San Diego County
    through policy change. Launched in 2012, HAN seeks to empower San Diego
    organizations to make a long-term, systemic impact on hunger policy in
    addition to the critical community assistance they provide on a daily
    basis. HAN has been working on the issue of military hunger since
    nearly the collaborative's inception.
        According to the San Diego Military Advisory Council, as of 2013
    over 100,000 members of the Navy and the Marine Corps are stationed in
    San Diego County. Both of San Diego County's food banks report serving
    a significant number of these military personnel and their families.
    The Jacobs and Cushman San Diego Food Bank estimates that their
    distribution network serves 28,000 active duty military and their
    dependents every month. Feeding America San Diego estimates that
    roughly 27% of the 143,900 households (encompassing 473,500 people)
    they serve annually include a member who has ever served in the
    military, and that 10% of all households receiving food assistance
    include someone currently serving in the military. Together, they
    supply food to at least eleven distributions every month that are
    focused on active duty military families. Some of these distributions
    occur on base at Camp Pendleton, and others occur at military housing
    sites, schools with high enrollment of military families, and elsewhere
    around the County.
        Concerned with the prevalence of military families seeking
    emergency food assistance, the Hunger Advocacy Network, with its member
    and partner organizations, began researching why so many military
    families were seeking emergency food assistance in San Diego County.
    The theme that repeatedly emerged was that many of these military
    families had applied for, but not received, Federal Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food assistance. The primary reason
    cited for their ineligibility was the treatment of their Basic
    Allowance for Housing (BAH). An additional recent survey of military
    families coming to one San Diego military food assistance provider
    found that roughly 20% of recipients had applied for SNAP, but that
    none were receiving it; nearly all reported the housing allowance as
    the factor preventing their enrollment in the program. Meanwhile,
    nearly 13% of survey recipients reported that in the last 12 months,
    there were times when they did not eat for an entire day because of a
    lack of money for food. This is not acceptable.
        Current law provides for military service members to be housed on
    base and for a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) to be provided to
    members for whom base housing is not available or who live in
    ``military privatized housing.'' As the military has modernized, the
    Department of Defense's policy is to rely on the private sector for its
    housing rather than to build and maintain government owned base
    housing, and roughly 63% of military families live in housing paid for
    by the housing allowance. The BAH is based on geographic duty location,
    pay grade, and dependency status. BAH is meant to provide service
    members adequate and equitable housing compensation based on housing
    costs in local civilian markets.
        Military service members who live on base receive their housing as
    an in-kind payment, and this in-kind payment does not count towards
    their income for the purposes of determining SNAP eligibility and
    benefits. However, the BAH that military households living off base
    receive is counted, creating a disparity between service members who
    live on vs. off base. BAH can also can negatively impact the child of a
    military service member from accessing the National School Lunch
    Program and the National School Breakfast Program. BAH appears on a
    service member's paystub (LES), but is not counted as income for
    Federal tax purposes. States also have the option not to count BAH as
    income for eligibility for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
    for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
        From 2003-2011, California did not count BAH as income for the
    purposes of SNAP eligibility. However, the state was instructed by the
    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that it must count BAH
    as income. It is unknown how many service members currently receive
    SNAP across the state or how many were affected by this change because
    military status is not required data when applying for the program.
    Similarly, estimates on military SNAP participation nationally vary
    widely, ranging between 2,000 and 22,000 military service members in FY
    2012. It has been reported, though, that there are food pantries
    operating on or near every single Naval and Marine base in the United
    States.
        The needs of military families in San Diego prompted California
    State Senator Ben Hueso to introduce the No Hunger for Heroes Act in
    2013 (S.B. 134), which sought to remove barriers for active duty
    military and veterans to access SNAP. For active duty military, it
    would have required the state of California to apply for a Federal
    waiver from the USDA to exclude BAH as income when determining SNAP
    eligibility. Subsequent inquiries with the state agency that
    administers the SNAP program in California, the California Department
    of Social Services (CDSS), regarding an application for such a Federal
    waiver came to the conclusion that any change to the treatment of the
    BAH for SNAP eligibility and benefits must be accomplished through
    Federal legislation.
        Subsequently, in 2015, U.S. Representative Juan Vargas (D-51)
    sought to address the disparity between the treatment of on versus off
    base military housing for all taxation, nutrition, and public
    assistance purposes via a proposed amendment to the Federal Fiscal Year
    2016 (FY16) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In the Senate, a
    bipartisan group of Senators led by Senator Boxer (D-CA) and Senator
    Murkowski (R-AK) introduced an amendment to the FY16 NDAA that sought
    to exclude housing allowances as income when determining eligibility
    for SNAP, the Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA) program,
    and other Federal nutrition program. The Hunger Advocacy Network
    strongly supported both of these proposals. While these amendments were
    not ultimately incorporated into the FY16 NDAA, they were important
    recognitions by Members of Congress for the need to address these
    disparities within our military, and the needs of our nation's military
    families.
        However, Congress did sunset the domestic FSSA program in the FY16
    NDAA following recommendations made by the Military Compensation and
    Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC). In light of extremely low
    participation in the FSSA program, only 285 service members in FY13,
    the Commission recommended an end to this program in favor of military
    enrollment in SNAP, saying ``[t]his program [FSSA] is duplicative with
    the Federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which
    provides a more effective benefit for service members.'' The Commission
    additionally noted that the SNAP program ``is more generous and creates
    fewer potential social stigmas for recipient families'' than the FSSA
    program, in part because a service member may be required to go through
    their local financial counselors and chain of command to enroll in the
    FSSA program. Now that military families have no other recourse for
    structural food assistance than the SNAP program, Congress must ensure
    that military families can meaningfully access the SNAP program.
        In addition, the House Armed Services Committee commissioned a
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) report into the state of
    military food insecurity and access to assistance. We are optimistic
    that this report will bolster limited existing data about the needs of
    our military families nationwide and provide meaningful recommended
    actions that Congress can take to address military hunger.
        No one in America should go hungry, and especially not the brave
    men and women and their families that already sacrifice so much in
    service of our country. We ask that Congress support common sense,
    bipartisan proposals to end the treatment of military Basic Allowance
    for Housing as income when determining eligibility and benefits for
    Federal food assistance programs. Thank you again for your attention to
    this important issue.
                                     ______

     Submitted Letter by Rodney Bivens, Executive Director, Regional Food
     Bank of Oklahoma; Eileen Bradshaw, Executive Director, Community Food
                            Bank of Eastern Oklahoma
    January 15, 2016

      Hon. K. Michael Conaway, Chairman,
      House Committee on Agriculture,
      Washington, D.C.

      Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
      House Committee on Agriculture,
      Washington, D.C.

    Re: Comments for Record: House Committee on Agriculture Hearing on
                Military and Veteran Food Insecurity (January 12, 2016)

        Chairman Conaway:

        The Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma and the Regional Food
    Bank of Oklahoma appreciate your efforts to address the important issue
    of food insecurity among military service members and veterans. Holding
    this hearing is an important step forward in acknowledging that our
    nation's heroes are not immune to hunger.
        According to a study published in 2015, more than one in four Iraq
    and Afghanistan veterans reported being food-insecure in the past
    year.\1\ A separate 2015 study by the Yale University School of
    Medicine found that 24 percent of veterans who have accessed care
    through the Veterans Health Administration (VA) reported being food-
    insecure, and that being food-insecure was associated with diminished
    management of hypertension, diabetes, HIV, and depression.\2\ With more
    than 300,000 veterans in Oklahoma, 50,000 of whom are homeless, we are
    deeply concerned that these numbers indicate tens of thousands of our
    state's former service members are struggling with hunger.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Widome R., Jensen A., Bangerter A., Fu S. (2015). Food
    insecurity among veterans of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Public Health Nutrition, 18, pp. 844-849. doi:10.1017/
    S136898001400072X.
        \2\ Wang E.A., McGinnis K.A., Goulet J., Bryant K., Gibert C., Leaf
    D.A., Mattocks K., Fiellin L.E., Vogenthaler N., Justice A.C., Fiellin
    D.A., Veterans Aging Cohort Study Project Team (2015). Food insecurity
    and health: data from the Veterans Aging Cohort Study. Public Health
    Reports, 130(3): 261-268.
        \3\ United States Census Bureau (2014). American Community Survey
    5-year estimates. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/
    pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Data for food insecurity among active-duty service members is
    scarce, as this is not something that is tracked nor even acknowledged
    to exist by the Department of Defense. However, Feeding America's
    ``Hunger in America 2014'' report provided rates of food insecurity
    among military personnel for the first time. According to that report,
    20 percent of Feeding America client households reported having at
    least one member who has served in the U.S. military, and four percent
    of households contain at least one member who is currently serving.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Feeding America (2014). Hunger in America Report. http://
    www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/our-research/hunger-in-
    america/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma's Mobile Eatery serves
    hot meals to 25-30 military veterans each week. While it is an honor to
    serve these individuals, it is disheartening to see them anxiously
    await their meal knowing that excitement may be an indication of their
    struggle with food insecurity. We know there are many more veterans who
    would benefit from this program, and because of the demonstrated need,
    the Mobile Eatery program will be expanded to two additional locations
    in early 2016. It is vital that we have accurate data on food
    insecurity among veterans in Oklahoma so we can efficiently plan to
    meet the needs of this important population.
        In light of our increasing awareness of hunger among the military
    and veteran population, the Oklahoma Food Banks make the following
    recommendations:

              Prioritize data collection on military and veteran food
            insecurity:

                      This can be accomplished by continuing to formally
                    acknowledge the existence of the problem through
                    hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives and the
                    U.S. Senate. Individual Representatives adding the
                    issue to their policy priorities would thus encourage
                    continued research and data collection by academic
                    institutions and perhaps eventually by the Department
                    of Defense. If even one military family goes without
                    adequate food, we are failing to fulfill our
                    responsibilities as a nation.

              Track military and veteran participation in Federal safety
            net programs:

                      Federal programs including the Supplemental Nutrition
                    Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for
                    Needy Families (TANF), and Women Infants and Children
                    (WIC) are critical to keeping millions of people
                    nationwide out of poverty. SNAP benefits lifted at
                    least 4.7 million people out of poverty in 2014,
                    including 2.1 million children.\5\ These safety net
                    programs also play a critical role in the lives of our
                    military and veteran families. Comprehensive data
                    demonstrating their enrollment and participation would
                    serve not only to illuminate the issue of food
                    insecurity among this population, but also as
                    compelling evidence for the case that Federal safety
                    net programs should remain the cornerstone of national
                    efforts to end hunger.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ White House (2015). Long Term Benefits of the Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
    whitehouse.gov/files/documents/SNAP_report_final_non
    embargo.pdf.

              Exclude Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) as countable income
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            in SNAP determination:

                      There is an egregious inequity in Federal law that
                    precludes some active duty military families from
                    qualifying for SNAP benefits because their Basic
                    Allowance for Housing (BAH) benefits are counted as
                    income in the determination of SNAP eligibility. We
                    recommend a simple resolution of this problem:
                    excluding BAH benefits as countable income in the SNAP
                    determination process. This would eliminate the
                    disparity that exists in the current way that SNAP
                    eligibility is determined for military and civilian
                    populations receiving Federal housing benefits.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ MAZON (2015). Help our Heroes. http://mazon.org/our-response/
    our-initiatives/help-our-heroes/.

        The Oklahoma Food Banks are deeply concerned about food insecurity
    among military and veterans. Due to our statewide service area, we have
    the ability to make meaningful differences in the lives of Oklahoma's
    veterans and military service members, but we cannot do it alone. We
    encourage the Committee to take immediate action on the issue, and
    offer our sincerest appreciation for holding this hearing.
                Sincerely,

    Rodney Bivens, Executive Director,   Eileen Bradshaw, Executive
                                          Director,
    Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma;      Community Food Bank of Eastern
                                          Oklahoma.

                                     ______

      Submitted Letter by Gina Corina, Executive Director, Utahns Against
                                     Hunger
    January 15, 2016

      Hon. Jackie Walorski,
      Chairwoman,
      Subcommittee on Nutrition,
      House Committee on Agriculture,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Chairwoman Walorski,

        Utahns Against Hunger (UAH) watched with interest the January 12,
    2016 public hearing: Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: Addressing
    Special Populations. As an organization we are concerned about access
    to SNAP, and how that access impacts all populations. We are especially
    interested in making sure that active duty military families and
    veterans in need have access to this important nutrition program.
        As UAH has learned about the access barriers many military families
    and veterans have to SNAP, we have become increasingly concerned about
    this issue, and we join with MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger and
    urge Congress to act swiftly to address this urgent problem.
        The National Commission on Hunger (NCH) recently released their
    report and recommendations on how we can reduce and eliminate hunger in
    our country. These recommendations outline where Congress and the
    United State[s] Department of Agriculture should start to move forward
    to address the issue of hunger for active duty military families and
    veterans.
        UAH urges your Committee to do everything in your jurisdiction and
    power to act on the following recommendations from the NCH report:

      1.  Congress should enact legislation to exclude the Basic Allowance
                for Housing as income for the determination of SNAP
                eligibility and benefit levels for families who have an
                active duty service member.

      2.  Congress should direct the Department of Defense to undertake a
                comprehensive review of the Family Subsistence Supplemental
                Allowance program and recommend reforms that are directed
                at improving food security in active duty military
                families.

      3.  In keeping with our country's priority of national security, the
                USDA should work jointly with the Department of Defense and
                the Department of Veterans Affairs to help with collecting
                data on food security, its causes and consequences, and
                SNAP participation among active duty military and veterans,
                and make this data available to Congress, the President,
                and to the public at regularly specified intervals.

        We are failing as a nation if we are not providing for those who
    have and those who are serving and protecting our country.
                Warm Regards,

    Gina Corina,
    Executive Director.
                                     ______

    Submitted Letter by Cristin Orr Shiffer, Senior Advisor for Policy and
                           Survey, Blue Star Families
    January 13, 2016

      Hon. Jackie Walorski,
      Chairwoman,
      Subcommittee on Nutrition,
      House Committee on Agriculture,
        Washington, D.C.

    Re: SNAP and U.S. Military Families

        Dear Chairwoman Walorski, Ranking Member McGovern, and Members of
    the Subcommittee,

        On behalf of Blue Star Families (BSF), the nation's largest
    chapter-based military family nonprofit organization, thank you for
    holding a hearing on the very important topic of ``Past, Present, and
    Future of SNAP: Addressing Special Populations.'' Financial readiness,
    including food security, is essential to overall military readiness and
    effectiveness. Further, it plays a role in attracting and retaining the
    best talent to assure the health of the All-Volunteer Force, and
    studies show financial and employment stressors to be one of the most
    prevalent stressors related to service member suicide. In a nutshell,
    military family food security is a national security issue.
        Results from our recently released 2015 Annual Military Family
    Lifestyle Survey (AMFLS), as Ms. Leibman of MAZON included in her
    testimony, include the concerning findings that 7% of active duty (and
    their spouse) respondents have experienced food insecurity within the
    past year and 6% have sought food assistance through a food bank, food
    pantry or charitable organization in the past year.
        As the Senior Advisor for Policy and Survey at Blue Star Families,
    I am also writing to express our support for a number of the
    recommendations presented during the aforementioned hearing and
    discussed below. Military couples and families face many of the same
    financial challenges as civilian families; however additional results
    from our survey indicate that respondents report every day financial
    tasks are more complex and challenging due to the unique and uncertain
    challenges of the military lifestyle. The financial stresses associated
    with military service--for example frequent moves, substantial
    challenges to military spouse employment, current Basic Allowance for
    Subsistence policies, and the lack of uniform state policies regarding
    qualification for assistance--may make it additionally difficult for
    military families to qualify for and obtain needed assistance.
        In addition to supporting MAZON's recommendations of improving
    agency collaboration and strengthening the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP) for our veterans, I express deep concerns
    regarding the inconsistency associated with access to SNAP for our
    currently serving military. BSF supports efforts to remove a military
    service member's Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) from SNAP
    eligibility determinations to remain consistent with requirements of
    the other Federal nutrition assistance programs such as Women, Infants,
    & Children (WIC). Our survey results support Ms. Tebbens' testimony
    stating BAH often portrays the appearance of economic stability, in her
    words being ``stable on paper only.'' Seventy-eight percent of our
    currently serving respondents reported they are paying some out of
    pocket costs beyond BAH for housing, with 22% reporting paying $400 or
    more per month. Finally, BSF supports Ms. Leibman's testimony that
    qualifying for SNAP and becoming food-secure are not one in the same,
    and strongly support the need for additional data like our annual
    survey to identify solutions to end food insecurity in the military.
        Military troops and their families are committed to the service of
    our country. Ninety-four percent of survey respondents indicate desire
    to serve their country was a top reason for joining the military and
    85%, indicated that financial stability was part of their motivation to
    serve as well. Service members and their families should not have to
    choose between service and financial security. They deserve the
    reassurance of knowing that our government understands the structural
    challenges associated with military life and if they should face
    inadequate access to food, confidential assistance outside of their
    military chain of command via SNAP and other programs are available for
    them.
        During this already uncertain time, when operational tempos are
    increasing while pay and benefits appear to be decreasing, access to an
    adequate supply of healthy food should not be adding to the challenges
    of service.
        Blue Star Families thanks you for your work on this important topic
    and for the opportunity to provide additional information to the
    official record. If I may be of further assistance please don't
    hesitate to reach out. Our complete Blue Star Families Military Family
    Lifestyle Survey results are accessible at www.bluestarfam.org/survey.
                Sincerely,

    Cristin Orr Shiffer,
    Senior Advisor for Policy and Survey,
    Blue Star Families.
                                     ______

         Submitted Letter by Karen Woodings, Advocacy Manager, Central
                             Pennsylvania Food Bank
    January 18, 2016

      Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
      Chairman,
      House Agriculture Committee,
      Washington, D.C.

    RE: Challenges in Serving Vulnerable Populations

        Dear Chairman Conaway:

        It was my great honor to have the opportunity to meet and address
    you, as well as our Pennsylvania Congressional delegation on Saturday,
    January 9, at the Pennsylvania Farm Show listening session. I am
    writing this letter to you on behalf of the Central Pennsylvania Food
    Bank and the individuals the Food Bank serves throughout Central
    Pennsylvania.
        The Central Pennsylvania Food Bank began operation in 1981 and is a
    501(c)(3) nonprofit organization registered as tax-exempt with the IRS.
    We are the largest nonprofit food distribution organization in the
    region, and are one of the top food banks in the nation for operational
    performance. The Food Bank is affiliated with Feeding America, the
    nation's largest nonprofit hunger fighting organization which solicits
    and facilitates donations of product at a national level.
        The Food Bank's mission is ``Fighting hunger, improving lives, and
    strengthening communities.'' We believe that service to others is
    fundamental to creating a hunger-free America. We operate with an acute
    sense of urgency that reflects the immediate needs of hungry people. We
    keep faith with the public trust through the efficient and
    compassionate use of resources entrusted to us and are mindful that our
    mission is accomplished through the generosity of others.
        The Central Pennsylvania Food Bank core service, known as the Food
    Security Network, which involves the solicitation, procurement,
    processing and distribution of food throughout a 27 county service area
    that covers over 18,000 miles\2\ in Pennsylvania. In FY 2014-2015, the
    Food Bank distributed 40 million pounds of food, an increase of 24%
    over the previous year. We currently serve approximately 60,000 people
    weekly. In addition the Food Bank is committed to providing healthy
    food options and now more than 20% of our food distribution is
    comprised of fresh fruits, vegetables, dairy, and fresh milk.
        Feeding America and its nationwide network of more than 200
    regional food banks, including the Central Pennsylvania Food Bank,
    recently conducted Hunger in America 2014 (HIA 2014), the latest in a
    series of quadrennial studies that provide comprehensive demographic
    profiles of people seeking food assistance. The study shows that the
    image of hunger in America is considerably different than it has been
    in the past and the individuals and families who rely on food pantries,
    soup kitchens and other programs to survive characterize an
    increasingly large and complex group due to the ever changing economic
    climate.
        Central Pennsylvania Food Bank was concerned by the results from
    HIA 2014. Knowing the anecdotal stories of the over 453,000 people we
    serve is significantly different than analyzing statistics about their
    lives. The Food Bank learned that individuals receiving food assistance
    must make serious, quality of life trade-offs between paying for food
    and paying for other necessities, such as rent, transportation, and
    medicine.

       70% report having to choose between paying for food and
            paying for medicine or medical care at least once in the last
            12 months.

       70% of households chose between paying for food and paying
            for utilities.

       59% of households chose between paying for food and paying
            for transportation.

       More than 30% of households face these choices every month.

        Of the 55,800 households surveyed for HIA 2014, 26% have at least
    one family member who has served or is actively serving in the United
    States military. Our military families and veterans can be a
    challenging population to serve because families are difficult to
    identify because they are frequently too proud to seek help through
    Federal nutrition programs.
        The reasons for food insecurity can involve numerous factors
    including: low pay for enlisted troops, high unemployment rates for
    spouses, low wage or retirement for veterans, higher cost of living
    near urban centers, veterans living with disabilities, Congressional
    limits on pay raises, unemployment or underemployment, and stigma of
    using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
        While the military currently offers the Family Subsistence
    Supplemental Allowance (FSSA) for low-income families, it has a low
    participation rate. Food pantries afford greater anonymity to active
    military families. Many military families do not want their commander
    to find out they can't afford to feed their spouses and children. For
    many families, tax-free allowances for housing, clothing, and food are
    not adequate for maintaining household sustainability because these
    families still have the cost of rent, utilities, medicine, and
    additional food items the family needs to survive. It is also worth
    noting that the FSSA is due to sunset at the end of FFY 2016. This will
    cause greater numbers of military families to seek assistance with the
    Food Security Network.
        The Central Pennsylvania Food Bank answer was to create our
    MilitaryShare Program. MilitaryShare is a means to provide access to
    fresh and nutritious food items to military households in our 27 county
    service area. The Food Bank partners with Pennsylvania's state and
    regional Family Readiness Coordinators to institute this program that
    distributes fresh food items directly to food-insecure military
    households who are struggling with hunger. By bringing this wholesome
    food directly to our military households, the MilitaryShare program
    directly helps combat the issue of scant financial resources that makes
    it difficult for low-income military households to access the adequate
    nutrition they need by providing a monthly food distribution, at no
    cost.
        The other vulnerable population I would like to address is senior
    citizens. Pennsylvania has a disproportionately large number of senior
    citizens. According to HIA 2014, 18.5% of the people served through
    Pennsylvania's Charitable Food Network are in individuals over the age
    of 60. In Pennsylvania, over two million seniors are 65 years of age or
    older and 169,499 seniors are living in poverty. Since 2001, there has
    been over an 85% level of growth in national senior hunger, most
    pronounced among Baby Boomers (i.e., the ``young old,'' ages 60 to 69).
        Central Pennsylvania Food Bank understands that the SNAP will help.
    Three out of five seniors who qualify for SNAP benefits, however, do
    not participate. Older Americans who qualify for SNAP are significantly
    less likely to participate in the program than other low-income
    demographic groups. Several factors contribute to the low participation
    rate including seniors face barriers related to mobility, technology,
    and societal stigma. Many seniors are discouraged to apply for SNAP
    benefits because of widespread myths about how the program works and
    who can qualify to receive benefits.
        The health consequences for hungry seniors are very disheartening.
    National studies state that seniors who are at risk for hunger are more
    likely to have mobility and activity limitations, as well as a decrease
    in their overall health. Poor nutrition impedes a senior's ability to
    effectively recover from illness, limits intake of essential vitamins,
    reduces efficacy of prescription drugs, exacerbates problems from pre-
    existing health conditions such as heart failure, diabetes, and
    depression, and increases hospital stays, which can put undue strain on
    the community.
        In 2005, the Central Pennsylvania Food Bank began our ElderShare
    Program to meet the growing need to feed hungry seniors. The ElderShare
    program was solely grant funded and was designed to augment the
    Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). In 2009, CSFP caseload was
    allocated to the Food Bank to serve 350+ seniors. As funding grew, so
    did our caseload. Central Pennsylvania Food Bank currently serves over
    5,350 seniors through CSFP funding and an additional 750-1,000 seniors
    a month through our privately-funded ElderShare Program. The Food Bank
    continues the privately-funded program to ensure no senior is hungry by
    serving those individuals on the ``waiting list'' for a CSFP opening.
        As Members of Congress, you can do much to decrease food insecurity
    for our veterans, active military families, and seniors. For active
    duty low-income enlisted military personnel, the Basic Housing
    Allowance (BHA) for housing is excluded as income in calculating income
    taxes and eligibility for some Federal programs, such as WIC and Head
    Start, but not all. The Central Pennsylvania Food Bank urges you to
    update eligibility guidelines to exclude BHA as income for all Federal
    nutrition programs. When SNAP considers BHA as income, this puts food-
    insecure military families at a great disadvantage and disqualifies
    many from received food assistance. This is driving more and more
    families to use the Food Bank's Food Security Network.
        For seniors, simplify and improve the application process. This
    truly is a barrier for seniors to access SNAP benefits. Continue
    categorical eligibility, it improves access for all low-income
    Americans. Invest in community based initiatives to assist seniors and
    veterans in better managing chronic conditions through better
    nutrition.
        The Central Pennsylvania Food Bank urges you to resist from making
    any further cuts to SNAP benefits. SNAP helps the poorest Americans
    have access to nutritious food. SNAP took 2.4 million children out of
    severe poverty in 2005 and reduces the likelihood of being food-
    insecure for all populations. SNAP also helps to drive local economies.
    For each SNAP dollar spent, that dollar generates $1.79 in economic
    activity. This translates to increased farm production, new jobs, as
    well as enhanced self-sufficiency for those in need of food assistance.
        Challenging or difficult to serve populations implies that the
    needs of some people may be beyond the scope of services that are
    typically available. We Must make every effort to connect vulnerable
    populations with the Federal nutrition programs where they qualify to
    receive benefits. It is essential that Congress ensures that people who
    are food-insecure and are difficult to serve are not forced to choose
    between food and other basic necessities.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.
                Sincerely,

    Karen Woodings,
    Advocacy Manager.

    Cc:

    Congressman Glenn Thompson,
    Josh Protas, MAZON,
    Lisa Davis, Feeding America.
                                     ______

      Submitted Statement by Hon. Susan Zimet, Executive Director, Hunger
                        Action Network of New York State
    Testimony to House Agriculture Committee on Military & Veteran Food
            Insecurity
        On behalf of the many anti-hunger groups, we thank you for holding
    hearings on the growing crisis of hunger and the military.
        For over a decade I have had the honor of serving my constituents
    as an elected Town Supervisor and County Legislator. In that role I
    have had the opportunity to work with veterans on many issues.
        What is apparent when speaking with veterans is the pride they have
    in serving their country, their love for the country and their extreme
    disappointment in the difficulties they face when forced to ask for
    help.
        ``It is pure embarrassment. I hate it. I don't like it. It's like
    taking away the pride you have and making you humble. You have to go
    [to the food pantry] and I hate to say it but it makes you feel like
    you are begging for food.'' Stated Mike Hernandez, a Navy veteran with
    a wife and three daughters. ``If you look at my [military] record, it's
    immaculate. And look at how bad I struggle. Why can't there be some
    type of program to help us out? We didn't do anything wrong. We come
    out of the military, next thing you know, we're left to fend for
    ourselves and you just can't make it.''
        Shirley Starkey, whose husband is a sergeant in the Marines and has
    been twice deployed to Afghanistan said ``It's hard to know that my
    husband is fighting for his country and he's working long days and long
    hours and we still have to struggle to keep food on the table and gas
    in our car.''
        I am new to the field of hunger, having assumed the role of
    Executive Director for Hunger Action Network of NYS last year, and the
    unprecedented hunger in America was shocking to me. But the growing
    impact of hunger amongst those who are serving or who served our
    country, was a real eye opener:

       620,000 households that include at least one soldier,
            reservist or guardsman--or 25% of the nation's total active
            duty & reserve are seeking aid from food pantries or charity
            program.

       130, 000 veterans are homeless or hungry on any given night.

       1.5 million veterans are at risk of becoming homeless and
            going hungry.

       Food stamp purchases at military commissaries have nearly
            tripled during the last 4 years between 2008-2011.

       According to Food Bank of NYC, 40% of NYC vets rely on food
            pantries & soup kitchens.

        Hunger Solutions NY reaches out to military and veteran's families
    to assist them in accessing SNAP benefits. In the first 2 years of
    providing the services, Hunger Solutions assisted more than 4.000
    military & veteran's families in New York State.
        Long Island Cares, the Harry Chapin Food Bank, understands the
    challenges faced by returning soldiers and their families as ``troops
    transition from the front lines to the home front.'' The organization
    offers several veteran service programs, two specific to hunger:
        Military Appreciation Tuesdays: Hosted each week at three Long
    Island Cares pantries, veterans and their families can access food,
    personal care items, household products, pet food and school supplies.
        Mobile Pantry: Delivers nutritious groceries to homebound, disabled
    veterans unable to access their local pantries. Long Island Cares
    Veterans Mobile Outreach Unit provided over 23,000 pounds of food &
    over 17,000 meals to veterans in 2015 alone.
        Each Tuesday, they have between 150-200 veterans who come to the
    satellite locations to access emergency food and household supplies to
    veterans and their families as well as information and referral
    services from other nonprofits serving veterans.
        ``The numbers of veterans needing the services of the food pantry
    keeps growing, with 1-2 new veterans coming through the doors of the
    pantry every month,'' stated Michael Haynes, Chief Government Affairs
    Officer for L.I. Cares. ``We are so happy we can help, but it is so sad
    that these brave men and women who sacrificed themselves to preserve
    our freedoms are in need of this help.''
        Hunger Action Network of New York State testified in Albany, New
    York at the U.S. Hunger Commission hearings. Families of active duty
    service members and veterans should not have to struggle to put food on
    the table.
        We were delighted to learn that the U.S. Hunger Commission adopted
    the recommendations presented by MAZON.

      1.  Congress should enact legislation to exclude the Basic Allowance
                for Housing as income for the determination of SNAP
                eligibility and benefit levels for families who have an
                active duty service member.

      2.  Congress should direct the Department of Defense to undertake a
                comprehensive review of the Family Subsistence Supplemental
                Allowance program and recommend reforms that are directed
                at improving food security in active duty military
                families.

      3.  USDA should work jointly with the Department of Defense and the
                Department of Veterans Affairs to help with collecting data
                on food security, its causes and consequences, and SNAP
                participation among active duty military and veterans, and
                make this data available to Congress, the President, and to
                the public at regularly.

        Veterans have served and sacrificed their family's stability on our
    behalf. Too many veterans are hungry and homeless. It is the obligation
    of our Country to give back to this brave men and women and ensure they
    live in dignity with food on the table and a roof over their head.
        Hunger Action Network of NYS stands ready to help in any way to
    ensure the needs of our military families are being addressed.
        Thank you so much for your time and attention to this issue.

    Hon. Susan Zimet,
    Executive Director,
    Hunger Action Network of New York State.

    Submitted on January 15, 2016 to:

    Congressman Chris Gibson,
    Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney,
    Lisa Shelton, House Agriculture Committee,
    Senator Kristen Gillibrand,
    Senator Chuck Schumer.
                                     ______

    Submitted Letters by Loaves and Fishes, St. Stephen and the Incarnation
                                Episcopal Church
                      david chamberlin, u.s. army veteran
    January 14, 2016

        Dear Representative:

        I am David Chamberlain and I was stationed with the Army in
    Missouri, Massachusetts and Central America in the mid-1980's. When I
    left the Army I suffered from depression and received some disability
    and Social Security. When times were really tight I had to use the food
    shelf and now I come and dine with Loaves and Fishes for meals.
        I support anything that can be done to help vets with food options
    like SNAP, food shelves and meals.
                Sincerely,

    David Chamberlin.
                  duane a. meier, u.s. army korean war veteran
    1/14/16

        To my elected officials:

        My name is Duane Meier and I was in the U.S. Army. I served for 18
    months in the Korean War and was deployed to Korea. After the war I
    moved back to Minnesota where I met my wife and found a job hauling
    garbage and later driving semi oil tankers.
        We never used food shelves or food stamps but I do go to a meal
    program every night that they are open for a hot meal. I am 90 years
    old and get Social Security and VA Assistance. I believe that all U.S.
    Veterans should be helped with food and ask that you supp01i bills that
    help them get what they need.

    Duane A. Meier.
                   Submitted Statement by Food Bank of Alaska
    Our Military and Veterans Should Never Struggle To Put Food on the
            Table
        The Food Bank of Alaska has a strong commitment to addressing
    military and veteran hunger. Alaska is home to many military bases, and
    has the highest number of veterans per capita of any state. We know
    from our extensive 2014 Hunger in America--Alaska Report that 23% of
    families served by the statewide Food Bank of Alaska network have at
    least one veteran in the household. This means that nearly \1/4\ of all
    families visiting our food pantries, soup kitchens and meal programs
    have a former serviceman or woman in the home. What's more, we know
    that many of our active duty military families are also turning to the
    charitable food sector for help. Statewide, 3% of families we are
    helping with food assistance are active duty military. In Anchorage,
    with its large military population, this figure is closer to 6%. While
    our pantry partners do not track the number of active duty military
    that visit their distributions, many have anecdotally reported an
    increase in the number of in-uniform active duty military they see. The
    Armed Services YMCA pantry on the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson
    serves an average of 70 families each month.
        Helen's story, and her testimony, provides examples of the
    challenges that military members and veterans face when they try to put
    food on the table. Helen and her husband are both veterans. Middle
    aged, they both have had full careers, but fell on hard times recently
    and moved back to Alaska in search of work. Not having any luck finding
    a job, they tried to apply for SNAP benefits, only to find out that
    they were $20 over the income limit, due to Helen's VA Benefits. So
    instead, they rely on food pantries to help get them through the month.
    ``Never in a million years would I think I would use food assistance,''
    said Helen. The first time we went to a pantry, my husband wouldn't get
    out of the truck. He just said ``I'm so ashamed.''
        Helen says she believes in ``paying it forward,'' and has helped a
    number of active-duty military families connect with local food
    pantries. Helen explains that they need the help, but don't want to
    sign up for SNAP for fear of repercussions. There is often a heavy
    stigma associated with receiving benefits for members of the military.
        Though times are tough for Helen and her husband, she is starting
    school soon to finish her bachelor's degree in business, with help from
    the VOC-Rehab Program. Ever the optimist, she explains, ``this isn't
    who we are, this is a situation.'' One that hopefully doesn't exist for
    her fellow servicemen and women in the future.
        The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a powerful
    tool in the fight against hunger. Unfortunately, as Helen explained,
    stigma keeps many military families from pursuing this option, and for
    those lower enlisted members who do try, many find that they miss the
    cut off for SNAP by a few hundred dollars. While the military has a
    nutrition program similar to SNAP--the Family Subsistence Supplemental
    Allowance (FSSA)--it is underutilized and is slated to be sunsetted
    domestically at the end of 2016. Veterans typically have low enrollment
    in the SNAP program, and some veterans who receive benefits are at risk
    of losing them, due to new Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents
    (ABAWDs) work requirements. To address the issue of hunger among
    active-duty military and veterans, we believe Congress should:

      1.  Remove policy barriers that deny active duty military families
                the nutrition assistance resources they need, including
                SNAP. Please consider legislation to exclude the Basic
                Housing Allowance (BAH) as income in determining
                eligibility for SNAP.

      2.  Gather and make available more data to accurately document food
                insecurity levels among active-duty military and veterans.
                Congressional briefings and the upcoming GAO study are
                great starts to these efforts; they should continue and
                reach farther.

      3.  Urge agency collaboration to ensure disabled and struggling
                veterans are better able to access food benefits through
                SNAP and other available programs.

        We are happy that the critical issue of food insecurity among our
    veterans and active duty military has been getting some of the
    attention that it deserves. We believe that one of the best ways to
    show respect and care for the men and women who have served and
    sacrificed for our country is to ensure they have the basic resources
    to support their families. Our military deserves better than having to
    face hunger.

              Food Bank of Alaska collected and distributed 6.8 million
            pounds of food in 2015 through 300 partner food pantries and
            meal programs statewide and advocates for policies to end
            hunger. For more information, visit www.foodbankofalaska.org.

                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

        (THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: EXAMINING STATE OPTIONS)

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
    1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael
    Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Conaway, Goodlatte, Lucas,
    King, Thompson, Gibbs, Crawford, Benishek, LaMalfa, Davis,
    Yoho, Walorski, Allen, Rouzer, Newhouse, Kelly, Peterson, David
    Scott of Georgia, Costa, Walz, Fudge, McGovern, Lujan Grisham,
    Kuster, Nolan, Bustos, Maloney, Kirkpatrick, Aguilar, Plaskett,
    Adams, Graham, and Ashford.
        Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Jadi Chapman, Mary Nowak,
    Paul Balzano, Scott C. Graves, Stephanie Addison, Lisa Shelton,
    Liz Friedlander, Matthew MacKenzie, Nicole Scott, and Carly
    Reedholm.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
                         IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

        The Chairman. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture,
    Past, Present and Future of SNAP: Examining State Options, will
    come to order. I have asked Rick Allen to say a brief prayer
    for us. Rick?
        Mr. Allen. Let us pray. Father, we are grateful for our
    time here this morning. Lord, let us be mindful of your many
    blessings as we hear from these folks today that are going to
    give us the information we need to make wise decisions. Lord,
    we do pray that you give us the wisdom and the influence to
    make the right decisions, and to do what is right for this
    country. We pray for this country. We thank you for this body.
    We thank you for agriculture, and blessing this land. In His
    name we pray, amen.
        The Chairman. Well, I want to welcome our witnesses to
    today's hearing, and thank them for being here to continue our
    review of the past, present, and future of SNAP. This is our
    12th hearing within this series. We have learned a tremendous
    amount about the complexities of SNAP, and even more about the
    diverse individuals and communities that it serves. As we
    continue our review, we will do so without preconceived
    notions, and with a commitment to strengthen the program so
    that it can best serve families, most efficiently utilize
    taxpayer dollars, and empower states to effectively implement
    the program, while protecting program integrity. Today our
    witnesses will help us get a better understanding of the
    various options and flexibilities that states have in
    implementing SNAP.
        Through our review we have learned that SNAP varies greatly
    from state to state, and can even vary within a state. While
    the Federal Government provides parameters for the program,
    SNAP statutes, regulations, and waivers provide state agencies
    with numerous policy options to adapt their programs to meet
    the needs of low-income people in their states. Certain options
    may facilitate program design goals, better target benefits to
    those most in need, streamline program administration and field
    operations, or coordinate SNAP activities with other programs
    for low-income families. When carrying out the program, states
    determine eligibility requirements, such as income thresholds,
    asset limits, work-related requirements. And, through
    categorical eligibility, states can utilize the participation
    from one means-tested program, such as Temporary Assistance to
    Needy Family, or TANF, to defer eligibility for SNAP.
        When calculating and issuing monthly benefits for those
    eligible, states have the flexibility to determine the value of
    medical deductions, and the standard utility allowances. It is
    important to note SNAP does not operate in a vacuum. When
    administering SNAP, states have a multitude of programs they
    are overseeing. As we will hear today, other programs, such as
    TANF, and Supplemental Security Income Program, have an effect
    on how SNAP is administered within the states. It is important
    to look at how, as a collective whole, these programs are used
    by the people they serve.
        As we prepare for the next farm bill, this holistic
    understanding of the program will be important to make
    meaningful improvements. Understanding SNAP's interaction with
    other government programs and state agencies will help to
    utilize the effectiveness of the Federal, state, and local
    governments as they administer SNAP. While it is important to
    empower states to employ the best policies to meet the needs of
    the low-income families they serve, we, as Federal lawmakers,
    must ensure the integrity of SNAP is maintained, and not
    compromised by those administrative efficiencies. State
    flexibility can be an important tool in helping a family move
    out of poverty, however, the American taxpayer needs confidence
    that government programs are being targeted to those most in
    need.
        I look forward to hearing our witnesses today as we explore
    how to best leverage the relationship between state and local
    communities, and to best serve recipients, and utilize taxpayer
    dollars.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
                              Congress from Texas
        I want to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing and thank them
    for being here as we continue our review of the Past, Present, and
    Future of SNAP. This is our twelfth hearing within this series, and we
    have learned a tremendous amount about the complexities of SNAP and
    even more about the diverse individuals and communities that it serves.
        As we continue our review, we will do so without preconceived
    notions and with a commitment to strengthen the program so it can best
    serve families, most efficiently utilize taxpayer dollars, and empower
    states to effectively implement the program while protecting program
    integrity.
        Today, our witnesses will help us gain a better understanding of
    the various options and flexibility states have when implementing SNAP.
    Through our review we have learned that SNAP varies greatly from state-
    to-state, and can even vary within a state. While the Federal
    Government provides parameters for the program, SNAP's statutes,
    regulations, and waivers provide state agencies with numerous policy
    options to adapt their programs to meet the needs of low-income people
    in their states.
        Certain options may facilitate program design goals, better target
    benefits to those most in need, streamline program administration and
    field operations, or coordinate SNAP activities with other programs for
    low-income families.
        When carrying out the program, states determine eligibility
    requirements, such as income thresholds, asset limits, and work-related
    requirements. Through categorical eligibility, states can utilize the
    participation from one means-tested program, such as the Temporary
    Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF, to defer eligibility
    for SNAP.
        When calculating and issuing monthly benefits for those eligible,
    states have the flexibility to determine the value of medical
    deductions or standard utility allowances.
        It is important to note SNAP does not operate in a vacuum. When
    administering SNAP, states have a multitude of programs they are
    overseeing. As we will hear today, other programs, such as TANF and the
    Supplemental Security Income program have an effect on how SNAP is
    administered in states. It is important to look at how, as a collective
    whole, these programs are used by the people they serve.
        As we prepare for the next farm bill, this holistic understanding
    of the program will be important in order to make meaningful
    improvements. Understanding SNAP's interaction with other government
    programs and state agencies will help to maximize the effectiveness of
    the Federal, state, and local governments as they administer SNAP.
    While it is important to empower states to employ the best policies to
    meet the needs of low-income families they serve, we as Federal
    lawmakers must ensure that the integrity of SNAP is maintained and not
    compromised for administrative efficiencies. State flexibility can be
    an important tool in helping a family move out of poverty, however the
    American taxpayer needs confidence that government programs are being
    targeted to those most in need.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as we explore
    how to best leverage the relationship between the states and local
    communities to better serve recipients and utilize taxpayer dollars.

        The Chairman. With that, I recognize the Ranking Member for
    any comments he has.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
                       IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing, and I am looking forward to hearing from the
    witnesses.
        I have been urging for some time now that the Committee
    take a look at the flexibility states have when administering
    SNAP. I understand that this is done to simplify the process,
    but I worry that it has gone too far, and that we have now too
    much leeway for the states. During the last farm bill debate I
    offered a plan to reform categorical eligibility, and, of
    course, it didn't happen. But I still have a hard time
    understanding how states with both Democratic and Republican
    governors are allowed to exceed Federal eligibility guidelines,
    and then charge the Federal Government for the additional
    expense. If we had a system like this, maybe we could balance
    the budget, if we could send the bill to somebody else. This
    creates a system, where we treat people differently in
    different parts of the country, and I just don't think that is
    right. My district, for example, borders North Dakota. North
    Dakota and Minnesota have different income and asset tests to
    qualify for SNAP, so people in Moorhead, right across the river
    from Fargo, have a different situation. And it's hard to
    understand why we are doing that.
        So I hope we will also be able to take a look at the impact
    of turning SNAP into a block grant, which, in my opinion, is
    not a viable option. I think it will only lead to the creation
    of an unaccountable slush fund for the states. Block granting
    SNAP has been supported by some in the past, but I hope we
    don't find ourselves on that path again. So, again, I look
    forward to the testimony. I thank the chair, and yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The chair would
    request that other Members submit their opening statements for
    the record so our witnesses may begin their testimony to ensure
    that there is an ample time for questions.
        I would like to welcome to our witness table today Ms.
    Stephanie Muth who is the Deputy Executive Commissioner for the
    Office of Social Services, Texas Health and Human Services
    Commission, Austin, Texas, Ms. Stacy Dean, Vice President of
    Food Assistance Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    here in Washington, D.C., and Ms. Karen Cunnyngham, Senior
    Researcher, Mathematical Policy Research here in Washington,
    D.C.
        With that, Ms. Muth, you may start your testimony when you
    are ready.

             STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE MUTH, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE
    COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF SOCIAL SERVICES, TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN
                   SERVICES COMMISSION, AUSTIN, TEXAS

        Ms. Muth. Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member
    Peterson, and Members. Thank you so much for the opportunity to
    be with you here today. And, as the Chairman said, I am
    Stephanie Muth, and I work at the Texas Health and Human
    Services Commission, where my responsibilities include
    overseeing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and
    eligibility operations for our integrated eligibility system,
    and I wanted to start by providing you with a little bit of
    information about the SNAP Program in Texas. We provide, on
    average, $435 million to 3.8 million SNAP recipients each
    month. Over \1/2\ of the recipients in Texas are children, and
    just under eight percent are over the age of 60. And, like the
    rest of the nation, over the past 10 years Texas has
    experienced growth in SNAP participation. States around the
    country have been challenged to work within our existing
    resources to meet the demands of this increased case load,
    while remaining focused on program integrity. To meet this
    challenge, Texas has pursued some innovative solutions that
    increase client self-service options, and leverage third party
    data sources. So clients increased use of self-service like our
    yourtexasbenefits.com website, and a mobile app, allows our
    staff the time to focus on what their core responsibility is,
    which is verifying the information that is provided, and making
    accurate eligibility decisions.
        The question posed to me was, how does Texas select which
    Federal options to implement in the SNAP program? Well, there
    is not one answer to that, but in general Texas selects options
    by considering state leadership direction, program integrity,
    business process efficiencies, and the impact on the rest of
    the programs in our integrated eligibility system. Our state
    leadership is actively involved and engaged in shaping and
    directing policies for SNAP, and provides some direction
    through legislative actions. Texas values accountability and
    integrity of its publicly funded program, so, as a result,
    Texas chooses to verify most income sources and deductions,
    such as child support and medical expenses, and we do maintain
    an assets limit that considers liquid assets, as well as
    vehicle values.
        In addition to maintaining program integrity, Texas is
    committed to efficient business processes that reduce
    unnecessary client interactions, while ensuring that we produce
    an accurate eligibility determination, and provide benefits
    timely. We allow applicants to submit applications online, and
    we have waivers that allow on demand and telephone interviews.
    And Texas also utilizes an electronic correspondence option so
    people can opt-out of receiving mail, and receive information
    from us through e-mail and text.
        We consider the availability of resources that are required
    to implement additional state options or waivers in relation to
    the expected gain. Simply put, it is what kind of bang are we
    going to get for our buck. With limited resources, both staff
    and funding, we have to prioritize those state and Federal
    mandates, and also projects that will have the most impact,
    when we are determining what to do. Texas has sought to align
    eligibility policies across our program. Since we are an
    integrated eligibility state, we have aligned SNAP income and
    resources policies to mirror the state's TANF program. And
    although states have some flexibility in the administration of
    SNAP, we believe there are additional opportunities to improve
    program integrity, and leverage technology to gain
    efficiencies. I would like to outline three of those for you
    today.
        First, Federal statute and regulations require that SNAP
    agencies accept an application with only a name, address, and
    signature. States are prevented from requiring any additional
    data elements to file an application, even an online
    application. Having the ability to require additional elements
    could strengthen program integrity in a virtual environment. It
    also could shorten eligibility processing timeframes, so we
    recommend some additional state flexibility in this area.
        Second, Federal regulations require states to interview
    SNAP recipients at initial certification, and at least once
    every 12 months at re-certification. We recommend additional
    flexibility in determining when an interview is required. This
    would allow us to better deter fraud at the front end, and to
    interview cases that are at higher risk because of the
    attributes of that case, like self-employment income, an error,
    or fraud.
        And last, Federal regulations require states to expunge
    SNAP benefits from accounts that have not been accessed after 1
    year. But some SNAP cases are active, but they have benefits as
    old as 12 months. This erodes the public confidence in the
    program. Why is somebody who is receiving SNAP still have the
    benefits from 12 months ago? So we recommend additional
    flexibilities in that area as well.
        And that completes my testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Muth follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Stephanie Muth, Deputy Executive Commissioner,
    Office of Social Services, Texas Health and Human Services Commission,
                                   Austin, TX
    Background
        The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) administers
    the Texas Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), one of the
    largest in the country, providing on average $435 million to 3.8
    million recipients each month. In Texas, the most common SNAP household
    is headed by a female between the ages of 18 and 39, with one or two
    children under age 12. She has some form of income, and receives a
    monthly SNAP benefit of $274. Over 8,000 staff across Texas determine
    eligibility for SNAP jointly with Medicaid, the Children's Health
    Insurance Program (CHIP), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
    (TANF) cash assistance using an integrated eligibility system. The
    Texas Workforce Commission administers the SNAP Employment and Training
    program.
        The Texas population continues to grow at a rate that is faster
    than the national average. Over the past 10 years, Texas, like the
    nation, has experienced growth in SNAP participation. In 2006, SNAP
    caseload in Texas was around 2.4 million while the current caseload is
    approximately 37 percent higher at 3.8 million. The state must work
    within existing resources to ensure capacity is available to handle
    future demands and to operate the program in a manner that ensures the
    highest level of program integrity. This requires the state to identify
    opportunities to identify and deter fraud, prevent cost inefficiencies,
    improve coordination of services, and implement process refinements
    where possible. To meet this growing demand for services, preserve
    limited resources, and maintain the program integrity within the
    system, Texas has pursued innovative solutions to increase client self-
    service options and to leverage third-party data sources to
    independently verify client-provided information needed to determine
    eligibility. Examples include the verification of income and employment
    data through Equifax workforce solutions (TALX, formerly the Work
    Number) and applicant identity through the Texas Department of Public
    Safety database. In addition the state is in the process of providing
    eligibility staff access to data on lottery winnings through the Texas
    Lottery Commission.
        Increased utilization of self-service allows staff to focus on
    their core responsibility of verifying information provided and
    determining eligibility accurately. Texas has increased self-service
    options for applicants and existing clients by developing and promoting
    a website as well as a mobile app that launched in 2014. The mobile app
    allows clients to upload eligibility verification documents, receive
    case alerts, check the status of their case, and report changes. With
    over 65% of applications submitted online and over 1.2 million
    documents uploaded through the mobile app, clients have demonstrated
    their strong facility with these tools.
        These tools have proven effective and have allowed the state to
    serve increasing caseloads without an increase in staff resources (See
    Figure 1 below). In 2009, only 58% of SNAP applications were processed
    on time. Today, over 96% of applications are processed on time. Texas
    estimates the increased reliance on self-service and the website saved
    as much as $41 million in reduced printing, postage, and document
    imaging costs for the state between 2012 and 2014. In addition,
    payments for call centers and document processing fell $12.7 million
    between Fiscal Years 2012 and 2014 while monthly caseload increased by
    more than 600,000 during the same time period.
    Figure 1: Average Monthly Benefit Recipients and Filled Eligibility
            Determination Positions, 1995 to 2015
     [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: Total Recipients count for Medicaid/TANF/SNAP is not an
            unduplicated total--recipients may be in all three categories.

        As the state has shifted to increase the use of self-service, there
    has also been a shift in the reliance of technology to prevent and
    detect fraud. For example, Texas has implemented an identity
    verification process in the online application, but due to Federal
    restrictions, the applicant has the option to not complete it. In
    addition, the state is implementing increased analytics to EBT card
    purchases, similar to the technology that credit card companies use to
    detect potentially fraudulent activity.
        In addition. Texas has begun implementing a new business process
    statewide focused on freeing up capacity by eliminating duplicate or
    unnecessary actions that do not add value, and maintaining staff's
    ability to independently verify information provided on applications
    and to make accurate eligibility determinations as quickly as possible.
    The new process has reduced the number of days it takes the state to
    deliver eligibility determinations, overtime, mailing and printing
    volumes, and client calls.
    How Does Texas Select Options for SNAP?
        SNAP benefits are 100% federally funded, and as such many of the
    program requirements are standardized across the country. Since SNAP is
    interoperable and benefits are portable across state lines, there is a
    need to maintain some consistencies between states. States do have
    areas of discretion within the program as contained in Federal statute
    and regulations. Outlined below is a description of the principles
    Texas applies in selecting options, some examples of options the state
    has selected, and areas where the state believes there are additional
    opportunities for flexibility.
        When deciding which option works best in Texas, there is not one
    single determining factor. In general, Texas selects options by
    considering state leadership direction, program integrity, business
    process efficiencies, and its integrated eligibility system.

       State leadership is actively engaged in shaping and
            directing policies for the SNAP program and has shown interest
            in future policy changes to deter fraud such as photo
            identification on EBT cards and flexibilities such as SNAP
            purchase restrictions. The agency receives some direction
            regarding state options through legislation or through state
            appropriations decisions.

       Texas values accountability and integrity of its publicly-
            funded programs, and is selective in the SNAP options it
            adopts. Texas verifies most income sources and deductions in
            SNAP such as child support and medical expenses and maintains
            an assets limit that considers liquid assets as well as vehicle
            values. In 2013, Texas requested similar flexibility from the
            Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to maintain an
            assets test for the Medicaid program. This request was denied
            in 2014.

       In addition to maintaining program integrity, Texas is
            committed to efficient business processes that reduce
            unnecessary client interactions while ensuring accurate
            eligibility determinations and timely benefits for eligible
            individuals. In addition to opting to allow applicants to
            submit applications online, Texas has active waivers that allow
            on-demand and telephone interviews in lieu of scheduled face-
            to-face interviews. Texas also utilizes electronic
            correspondence, and does not require re-certification
            interviews for households in which all adult members are
            elderly or disabled and have no earned income since these are
            low-risk cases. Having this flexibility allows the state to
            focus resources on preventing and detecting potential fraud.

       Texas also considers the availability of resources required
            to implement additional state options or waivers, in relation
            to the expected gains that will result from the change. Limited
            resources--both staff and funding--require the state to
            prioritize Federal- or state-directed changes and projects that
            will produce the most impact for the multiple programs
            maintained within its integrated eligibility system. In recent
            years, a focus on implementation of major Federal policy
            changes has reduced the state's capacity to initiate optional
            system changes for other programs. As a result, automation
            changes are carefully considered to ensure they are cost-
            effective, maintain program integrity, and preserve flexibility
            for future changes. Texas has also sought to align eligibility
            policies across the programs when allowable. For example, Texas
            has opted to align policies such as income, resources, and
            treatment of vehicles to mirror the cash assistance program,
            TANF.
    Additional Opportunities for State Flexibility
        Although states have some flexibility in administration of SNAP,
    there are opportunities beyond the current available options for states
    to improve program integrity and leverage technology to gain
    efficiencies.

       Federal statute and regulations require SNAP agencies to
            accept applications with only a name, address and signature
            whether submitted via an online process or paper process (in
            person, mail, or fax). This prevents states from requiring
            additional information needed to validate applications
            submitted online in order to confirm identity and to eliminate
            fraudulent activity. It can also result in incomplete
            information required to process applications and lead to
            additional client interactions, longer eligibility processing
            timeframes, and costs to the state. As more business moves
            online and less face-to-face interaction with clients is
            necessary, administrators must seek new ways to prevent and
            detect fraud. Texas recommends allowing flexibility for states
            to require additional information in order to accurately
            authenticate online applicants, reduce fraud, and protect
            confidential information. 7 U.S.C.  2020(e)(2)(B)(iv). 7 CFR
            273.2(c)(1).

       Federal regulations require states to interview SNAP
            recipients at initial certification and at least once every 12
            months at re-certification. Though states may opt to perform a
            phone interview in lieu of face-to-face, the submission of
            information online or through automated phone response systems
            is not considered to meet the interview requirement. FNS
            recently allowed Oregon and Utah to conduct demonstrations in
            which the eligibility interviews at application and re-
            certification were eliminated. A study of the demonstration
            project concluded that eliminating the interview may reduce
            error rates and decrease program churn. Texas recommends
            allowing states additional flexibility in determining when an
            interview is required. This would allow states to use analytics
            to identify high risk cases and target staff resources to focus
            on cases where fraud may be more likely to occur. Additional
            flexibility would allow states the ability to deter fraud at
            the front end, interview high risk cases, utilize technology to
            capture the same information that would be captured in an
            interview, and to better utilize staff time independently
            verifying information to make accurate eligibility
            determinations. 7 CFR  273.2(e)(1).

       Federal regulations require states to expunge SNAP benefits
            from accounts that have not been accessed after 1 year.
            However, some households still develop high SNAP balances,
            which are allowed under program rules. This weakens program
            integrity by creating the perception that these households do
            not need or are not appropriately using their SNAP benefits.
            FNS has begun to address this issue by directing states to
            conduct verification checks on accounts with balances of $5,000
            or more. In 2014, HHSC proposed additional actions to address
            high SNAP balances and further strengthen program integrity.
            HHSC requested and was denied a waiver to expunge SNAP benefits
            from active accounts that have been available for at least 12
            months. This waiver would have allowed the state to expunge an
            additional 25,700 cases per month totaling approximately
            $254,000 in value, on top of the current average of about
            42,000 cases totaling approximately $2.3 million each month.
            Texas recommends allowing states this flexibility to strengthen
            program integrity and ensure appropriate use of public funds. 7
            CFR  274.2(h)(2).

        The Chairman. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Dean, 5 minutes.

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

        Ms. Dean. Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and
    Committee Members, thank you for the invitation to testify
    today. I am Stacy Dean, Vice President for Food Assistance
    Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a
    nonpartisan policy institute located here in Washington. I am
    really pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you today
    about state flexibility in the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program, or SNAP. I have worked on the program for
    more than 20 years, and one of the most rewarding parts of my
    job is the opportunity to work directly with state officials to
    improve the program at the local level, including helping them
    to understand the flexibilities available to them.
        SNAP is the nation's most important anti-hunger program. It
    currently helps 45 million low-income Americans to afford a
    nutritionally adequate diet. It has powerful short- and long-
    term impacts on low-income families and individuals. It helps
    families and communities weather tough times. It reduces
    poverty and food insecurity. It improves health, and supports
    work. The program has been proven particularly important to
    families with very young children, having lasting impacts on
    their health and development.
        SNAP's success can largely be attributed to its national
    entitlement structure, its relatively uniform eligibility
    standards, its basic standards for program administration and
    integrity, and the fact that it is a food-based benefit.
    Although it is a national program, states administer SNAP, and
    are a key partner in the program's success. States absolutely
    need some flexibility in SNAP because they operate it within a
    larger health and human services system, as you have just heard
    from Ms. Muth, and that can include Medicaid, child care, cash
    assistance, and other programs.
        So let me just highlight a few areas of flexibility that I
    covered in my written testimony. First, states can tailor the
    look and feel of SNAP to their health and human services
    systems, and we just heard about a few in Texas. The amount of
    SNAP benefits that similarly situated families receive across
    two states really is very consistent, but how they engage with
    and experience the state agency can be quite different. Some
    states emphasize online services, or in person, or both. Some
    commit to process benefit applications within hours. In other
    cases, it will take weeks. Some provide a comprehensive set of
    services through a single case worker, and in other places
    families are asked to go to multiple places and fill out
    redundant paperwork. These are all choices that states have.
        Second, the states have special flexibility to improve
    service delivery to the working poor. After the passage of the
    1996 welfare law, states began to see that some of states'
    rules were impeding their ability to connect eligible working
    families to the program, and as a result, Congress, through the
    farm bills, provided new state options designed to allow states
    to service working families, and these flexibilities have made
    a difference. States now serve close to \3/4\ of eligible
    working poor families versus less than \1/2\ in the late 1990s.
    And finally, states can test new ideas. USDA can waive certain
    SNAP requirements to test whether a change would be in the
    program's interest. Now, I believe the Department is
    appropriately cautious about allowing unproven, sweeping new
    changes into the program that would compromise program
    integrity or program access. Nevertheless, USDA does work with
    early innovator states, and I would put Texas in that category,
    to test new ideas.
        Overall I really think Congress and USDA have struck a
    reasonable balance in maintaining SNAP as a high performing
    national program, while providing states with needed
    flexibility. States' requests for more flexibility really have
    to be weighed with other considerations. Most notably, the
    program is highly effective at protecting vulnerable people
    from hunger and hardship, so state variation has to be
    carefully considered as to whether it will help the program
    meet that basic need, or put struggling people at greater risk.
    SNAP is fundamentally a food assistance program, and how it
    assesses what is a household, and that household's ability to
    purchase food for itself is just necessarily different than how
    we might measure the same group of people's ability and
    obligation to, for example, cover health insurance costs, or
    child care for each other. Federal SNAP rules require the
    highest level of rigor for any major benefit program with
    respect to assessing applicants' eligibility in determining
    benefits. Many states' request to change rules might save them
    time or burden, but would chip away at these very exacting
    standards.
        So I absolutely appreciate your desire to strengthen the
    program, and this hearing process. As you assess suggestions
    for further flexibility or modifications to the program, we
    encourage you to ensure that those proposals not undermine
    SNAP's strengths. Proposals to sweep away some of the program's
    key features, or that would shift benefits away from food,
    would run counter to the program's goals and proven success.
    Block grants, capped funding, or merged funding streams all
    would eliminate the most important feature of SNAP, its
    national entitlement structure. Similarly, proposals that would
    weaken or deter access, or weaken the program's strong focus on
    integrity, would also compromise its current success. Any of
    these types of changes to SNAP's structure must be avoided.
    Thank you.
        [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.
    Balancing State Flexibility Without Weakening SNAP's Success
        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 have
    worked on SNAP policy and operations for more than 20 years. Much of my
    work is providing technical assistance to state officials who wish to
    explore options and policy to improve their program operations in order
    to more efficiently serve eligible households. 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 work has included 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 is divided into two sections: (1) SNAP's role in
    our country as a Federal nutrition program; and (2) an overview of
    state flexibility and options in SNAP.
    SNAP Plays a Critical Role in Our Country
        Before turning to today's hearing topic of SNAP's state options and
    flexibility, it is important to review some of SNAP's most critical
    features. The program is a highly effective anti-hunger program that is
    administered with relatively low overhead and a high degree of
    accuracy. Much of the program's success is due to a consistent national
    benefit structure, rigorous requirements on states and clients to
    ensure a high degree of program integrity and a focus on providing food
    assistance. Congress and USDA have sought to provide states flexibility
    where it would enhance the program and without weakening SNAP's
    success.
        As of November of last year, SNAP was helping more than 45 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 $1.41 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 gave
    primary credit for 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. (See Figure
    1.)
        As a result, SNAP can respond immediately to help families and to
    bridge temporary periods of unemployment or a family crisis. A U.S.
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) study of SNAP participation over the
    late 2000's found that slightly more than \1/2\ 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. In 2014 and
    2015, for example, it helped households in the Southeast affected by
    severe storms and flooding and households on the west coast affected by
    wildfires.
    Figure 1
    SNAP Tracks Changes in Share of Population that Is Poor Or Near-Poor
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Note: Poverty estimates are annual estimates and available
            through 2014. SNAP share of resident population are annual
            averages.
              Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

        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.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 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 2014 and
    2015 SNAP caseloads declined in most states; as a result, the national
    SNAP caseload fell by two percent both years. Nationally, for more than
    2 years fewer people have participated in SNAP each month than in the
    same month of the prior year; about 2.5 million fewer people
    participated in SNAP in recent months than in December 2012, when
    participation peaked.
        As a result of this caseload decline, spending on SNAP as a share
    of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell by four percent in 2015. In 2014
    it fell by 11 percent, largely due to the expiration of the Recovery
    Act's SNAP benefit increase. CBO predicts that this trend will
    continue, and that SNAP spending as a share of GDP will fall to its
    1995 levels by 2020.
    SNAP Lessens the Extent and Severity of Poverty and Unemployment
        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
    and is an area where states sometimes seek to simplify, it helps ensure
    that SNAP provides the most assistance to the poorest families with the
    greatest needs.
        This makes SNAP a powerful tool in fighting poverty. A CBPP
    analysis using the government's Supplemental Poverty Measure, which
    counts SNAP as income, and that corrects for underreporting of public
    benefits in survey data, found that SNAP kept 10.3 million people out
    of poverty in 2012, including 4.9 million children. SNAP lifted 2.1
    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) (see
    Figure 2) and cut the number of extremely poor children by more than
    \1/2\ (from 3.6 million to 1.2 million).
    Figure 2
    SNAP Cuts Extreme Poverty Almost in \1/2\
    Number of Households With Children, in 2011, Living on $2 Or Less Per
            Person Per Day
    [GRAPHICS 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 is able to achieve these results because it is so targeted at
    very low-income households. Roughly 93 percent of SNAP benefits goes to
    households with incomes below the poverty line, and 58 percent goes to
    households with incomes below \1/2\ of the poverty line (about $10,045
    for a family of three in 2016). (See Figure 3.)
    Figure 3
    Two-Fifths of SNAP Households Are Below \1/2\ the Poverty Line
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Source: USDA Household Characteristics Data, FY 2014.

        During the deep recession and still-incomplete 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. Long-term unemployment hit record highs in
    the recession and remains unusually high; in January 2016, more than a
    quarter (26.9 percent) of the nation's 7.8 million unemployed workers
    had been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer. That's much higher
    than it's ever been (in data back to 1948) when overall unemployment
    has been so low.
        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 (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
        While reducing hunger and food insecurity and lifting millions out
    of poverty in the short run, SNAP also brings important long-run
    benefits.
        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).\2\ (See
    Figure 4.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Hilary W. Hoynes, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Douglas
    Almond, ``Long Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net,''
    National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 18535, 2012,
    www.nber.org/papers/w18535.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 4
    Children With Access to SNAP Fare Better Years Later
    Percentage-Point Change in Outcomes for Adults Who Received SNAP as
            Children, Compared to Adults Who Did Not Receive SNAP as
            Children
    [GRAPHICS 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.
    Supporting and Encouraging Work
        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 seven million in 2014. The share of SNAP families that
    are working while receiving SNAP assistance has also been rising--while
    only about 28 percent of SNAP families with an able-bodied adult had
    earnings in 1990, 57 percent of those families were working in 2014.
    (See Figure 5.)
    Figure 5
    SNAP Work Rates Have Risen, Especially Among Households With Children
            and Adults Who Could Be Expected to Work
    Share of Households With Earnings
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Source: CBPP tabulations of USDA household characteristics
            data.

        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 \1/2\ 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. (See Figure 6.) (About \2/3\ of SNAP recipients
    are not expected to work, primarily because they are children, elderly,
    or disabled.)
    Figure 6
    SNAP Households with Working-Age Non-Disabled Adults Have High Work
            Rates
    Work Participation During the Previous and Following Year for
            Households that Received SNAP in a Typical Month

              Source: CBPP calculations based on 2004 SIPP Panel data.
    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.
        The percentage of SNAP benefit dollars issued to ineligible
    households or to eligible households in excessive amounts fell for 7
    consecutive years and stayed low in 2014 at 2.96 percent, USDA data
    show. The underpayment error rate also stayed low at 0.69 percent. The
    combined payment error rate--that is, the sum of the overpayment and
    underpayment error rates--was 3.66 percent, low by historical
    standards.\3\ Less than one percent of SNAP benefits go to households
    that are ineligible. (See Figure 7.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ See the Fiscal Year 2014 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
    2.27 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.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 7
    SNAP Error Rates Near All-Time Lows
    Fiscal Years 1990-2014
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

        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.
        Finally, SNAP has low administrative overhead. About 90 percent of
    Federal SNAP spending goes to providing benefits to households for
    purchasing food. Of the remaining ten percent, about seven percent was
    used for state and Federal 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.
    Figure 8
    90 Percent of Federal SNAP Spending Is for Benefits
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Source: Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2015.
              Note: Other nutrition programs include spending on nutrition
            assistance grants for territories, support for food banks, and
            the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
    Balancing State Flexibility With Effective National Standards
        While SNAP is a national program with relatively uniform
    eligibility standards and basic parameters for program administration
    and program integrity, it is administered by states, which share in the
    costs of administering the program. States are a key partner in the
    program's success and one of their primary considerations is that they
    do not administer SNAP in a vacuum or under a consistent set of local
    circumstances. All states have integrated SNAP into their broader
    health and/or human service systems for both efficiency and service
    considerations. In most places, SNAP is co-administered with many other
    programs.
        While Medicaid is the program with the most significant overlap
    with SNAP (about \3/4\ of households receiving SNAP benefits in 2014
    had at least one member receiving health coverage through Medicaid or
    the Children's Health Insurance Program),\5\ states also co-administer
    SNAP with other programs including child care, cash assistance, and
    refugee assistance. That means that they often are using the same set
    of staff, computer systems, local offices, and forms for many different
    programs. States are constantly working to integrate the major safety
    net programs into a coherent package for families, in order to support
    their stability while improving efficiency and program integrity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ CBPP analysis of the Census Bureau's March 2015 Current
    Population Survey. See Jennifer Wagner and Alicia Huguelet,
    ``Opportunities for States to Coordinate Medicaid and SNAP Renewals,''
    Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 5, 2016, http://
    www.cbpp.org/research/health/opportunities-for-states-to-coordinate-
    medicaid-and-snap-renewals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As a result, the program provides states with flexibility in how
    they operate the program to respond to local circumstances,
    particularly with respect to harmonizing SNAP operations with Medicaid
    and other local programs.
        In other cases, states have identified program rules that conflict
    with the program's core goals. One of the key examples of this was in
    the late 1990's after the passage of the 1996 welfare reform law. As
    many low-income families with children were leaving cash assistance as
    a result of policy changes to that program and the booming economy,
    states also saw a drop-off in food stamp enrollment that could not be
    explained by a drop in the share of eligible individuals. Many families
    were leaving cash assistance for work but were not earning wages that
    would disqualify them from SNAP. States began to see that some of
    SNAP's eligibility and administrative requirements were undermining
    their ability to serve working-poor families. As a result, Congress
    enacted numerous new state options in the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills
    designed to allow states to improve service to working families.
        And, states often have ideas for ways to improve program
    administration or design that were not envisioned by Congress or USDA
    and that merit accommodation or testing. In many cases, the program
    allows for local customization. When flexibility is not explicitly
    provided, USDA has the authority to waive its SNAP requirements when it
    believes the requested change would be in the program's best interest.
    Typically, USDA is cautious about allowing unproven sweeping new
    changes into the program. The department often seeks early innovators
    to test ideas and then identifies the best means to integrate (or
    reject) the ideas as state options.
        Congress and USDA have had to weigh states' and localities'
    requests for flexibility with other core values and considerations,
    most notably:

       At its core, SNAP is a food assistance program. How it
            assesses what comprises a household, and a household's ability
            to purchase food, is necessarily different than how we might
            measure the same group of people's obligation and ability to
            provide for each other's health care or child care.

       SNAP is a national program meant to respond as consistently
            as possible to the needs of low-income people and families who
            cannot afford a basic diet no matter where they live.
            Currently, families with the same economic circumstances in two
            states can expect the same level of SNAP benefits under this
            national framework. The same is not true of many state-operated
            human services and income support programs. In fact, SNAP plays
            a key role in leveling out the disparate level of wages and
            support available to poor families and individuals across
            states.

       The program is a highly effective intervention that protects
            vulnerable families, seniors, people with disabilities, and
            others from hunger and hardship. Flexibility and state
            variation must be carefully considered as to whether it will
            augment the program's ability to meet these basic needs or put
            needy people at greater risk.

       SNAP benefits are paid entirely by the Federal Government.
            Federal SNAP rules require the highest level of rigor of any
            major benefit program; with respect to assessing eligibility
            and determining benefit levels to ensure that states are
            properly administering Federal funds. And, SNAP rules generally
            require a detailed assessment of a household's current
            financial situation. Few other programs operated by states meet
            these standards.

       A consistent framework for customer service standards, such
            as the requirements for states to process applications within
            30 days of receipt and for households to provide documentation
            of their income and circumstances, is important to ensure a
            shared sense of program requirements across states. Early
            experience with the program demonstrated that states were
            extremely uneven in how they operated the program and, in some
            cases, access was extremely limited.

        There can be a tension between remaining true to SNAP's goals of
    addressing food insecurity and hunger and providing states with
    flexibility to set SNAP policy. While the discussion and debate around
    the appropriate level of state flexibility is an ongoing one, I believe
    that Congress and USDA have struck a reasonable balance in maintaining
    SNAP as a high performing national program while according states
    sufficient flexibility. The program has valued maintaining a generally
    consistent national eligibility and benefit structure that demands a
    high level of rigor and integrity when assessing eligibility, as well
    as a common framework of what's expected of clients and states in
    administering the program. Flexibility has been provided in a number of
    areas detailed in the section below.
        As you assess suggestions for further flexibility or modifications
    to the program, we encourage you to ensure that those proposals do 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 would run counter
    to the program's goals and proven success. Block grants, capped
    funding, or merged funding streams all would eliminate the most
    important features of SNAP--its national entitlement structure. Any of
    these types of changes to SNAP's structure must be avoided.
        To be sure, despite the level of flexibility offered in SNAP, it is
    less flexible than various other programs state-administered health and
    human services programs. Programs with capped Federal funding such as
    the child care development block grant or the Temporary Assistance for
    Needy Families (TANF) block grant offer states more flexibility in
    setting program rules. Of course, those programs are extremely limited
    in in their reach and impact. And, programs that states administer that
    require a significant state financial contribution, such as Medicaid,
    establish basic minimum Federal standards but give states flexibility
    to expand the program's eligibility and benefit package as well as
    tailor administration and operations within more general Federal
    guidelines. Because states also operate these other programs, SNAP can
    strike them as significantly less flexible by comparison.
    Areas of Flexibility in SNAP
        SNAP's statute, regulations, and waivers provide state agencies
    with various policy options. State agencies use this flexibility to
    adapt their programs to meet the needs of their eligible, low-income
    residents. Certain options may facilitate program design goals, such as
    removing or reducing barriers to access for low-income families and
    individuals, or providing better support for those working or looking
    for work. Others focus on streamlining and coordinating SNAP with other
    programs, such as Medicaid. This flexibility helps states better target
    benefits to those most in need, streamline program administration and
    field operations, and coordinate SNAP activities with those of other
    programs.
        The following are several categories of flexibility within the
    program, with examples of the types of flexibility available in each
    category. The list is meant to provide a flavor of the available
    options versus providing an exhaustive catalogue within each category.
    Options that Provide Flexibility in Eligibility or Benefit Calculation
            Policy
        As a part of and since the passage of the 1996 welfare law,
    Congress has offered states several options to adopt less restrictive
    eligibility and benefit calculation rules in SNAP in order to
    coordinate SNAP with other programs, such as TANF cash assistance and
    Medicaid. In addition, this flexibility has made it much easier for
    states to serve working families.

       Vehicle asset test: Federal rules for counting the value of
            cars and other vehicles toward SNAP eligibility are restrictive
            and outdated. The Food Stamp Act of 1977 required states to
            count the fair market value of a car as a resource to the
            extent that it exceeded $4,500, an amount not indexed to
            inflation that has been raised by only $150 in almost 40 years.
            Because Federal policy was viewed as preventing low-income
            households, especially working families, from owning reliable
            means of transportation, and because many states had addressed
            this concern in other programs for which they set eligibility
            rules, in 2000 Congress gave states flexibility to craft a food
            stamp vehicle asset rule that suits their needs. Instead of the
            Federal rules, states may use in SNAP the method for valuing
            vehicles that the state has established under a TANF-funded
            cash or non-cash assistance program so long as it is not more
            restrictive than Federal food stamp rules. After this change,
            many states imported into SNAP the vehicle rules they used in
            their TANF cash assistance or TANF-funded child care programs.
            Within a few years of the change, every state had modified its
            rules for counting the value of vehicles so that participants
            could own a more reliable car.

       Categorical eligibility: The 1996 welfare law provided
            states with an option to align two aspects of SNAP eligibility
            rules--the gross income eligibility limit and the asset test--
            with the eligibility rules they use in programs financed under
            their TANF block grant. Over 40 states have adopted this option
            to simplify their programs, reduce administrative costs, and
            broaden SNAP eligibility to certain families in need, primarily
            low-wage working families.

          States use the categorical eligibility option to enable
            households with gross incomes modestly above 130 percent of the
            poverty line (up to 200 percent of poverty in a few states) but
            disposable income below the poverty line--or with savings
            modestly above $2,250 (an asset limit that has declined by
            about 50 percent in real, i.e., inflation-adjusted, terms since
            1986)--to qualify for SNAP assistance in recognition of their
            need.
          In states that take the option, households must still apply
            through the regular application process, which has rigorous
            procedures for documenting applicants' income and
            circumstances. But the option allows states to provide SNAP to
            certain working families with children or to households that
            have built a modest amount of savings who otherwise would not
            qualify for help affording food.

         Flexibility with the gross income limit favors low-
                income households with modest incomes and high living
                expenses. About $9 of every $10 in SNAP benefits that are
                provided to low-income households who qualify for SNAP
                because their state uses this option are provided to low-
                income working households. About $8 of every $10 in such
                benefits go to families with children. About \2/3\ of these
                benefits go to households with gross income below 150
                percent of the Federal poverty line.

         Without this option, states cannot provide SNAP to
                poor families who have managed to save as little as $2,251
                or to seniors or people with disabilities who have saved as
                little as $3,251. Building assets helps low-income
                households invest in their future, avert a financial crisis
                that can push them deeper into poverty or even lead them to
                become homeless, avoid accumulating debt that can impede
                economic mobility, and have a better chance of avoiding
                poverty and greater reliance on government in old age.

          Despite some claims, categorical eligibility was not the major
            driver of increased caseloads during the recent economic
            downturn. The economy and increased poverty as well as a rise
            in the participation rate among eligible people were the
            overwhelming drivers of caseload increases during the
            recession. Economists Peter Ganong and Jeffrey Liebman found
            that increased adoption of broad-based categorical eligibility
            accounted for eight percent of the caseload increase. (Because
            households eligible as a result of broad-based categorical
            eligibility receive lower-than-average benefits, this change
            accounted for a smaller share of the cost increase during the
            same period.) \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Peter Ganong and Jeffrey B. Liebman, ``The Decline, Rebound,
    and Further Rise in SNAP Enrollment: Disentangling Business Cycle
    Fluctuations and Policy Changes,'' National Bureau of Economic
    Research, Working Paper 19363, August 2013, http://www.nber.org/papers/
    w19363.pdf?new_window=1. See Dottie Rosenbaum and Brynne Keith-
    Jennings, ``SNAP Costs and Caseloads Declining,'' Center on Budget and
    Policy Priorities, updated February 10, 2016, http://www.cbpp.org/
    research/food-assistance/snap-costs-and-caseloads-declining.

       Transitional benefits: A change in the 2002 Farm Bill allows
            states to provide up to 5 months of transitional SNAP benefits
            to families that leave states' TANF cash assistance programs.
            The provision was enacted in response to research that found
            that fewer than \1/2\ of households that left TANF cash
            assistance stayed connected to SNAP, despite earning low wages
            and (in most cases) remaining eligible for SNAP benefits. The
            option allows states to continue a family's SNAP benefits when
            a family gains a job and leaves TANF cash assistance, based on
            information the state already has and without requiring the
            family to reapply or submit additional paperwork at that time.
            The continuity of SNAP can reward work and help make clear to
            families that SNAP is available to low-income families that do
            not receive cash assistance. Helping families retain benefits
            can help make the transition to work more successful and ensure
            that families are better off working than on welfare. In 2013,
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            20 states had adopted the option.

       Simplified income and resources: Two other provisions of the
            2002 Farm Bill allowed states to simplify which income and
            resources count toward SNAP eligibility by excluding uncommon
            forms of income and/or resources that they exclude in their
            TANF cash assistance or Medicaid programs. More than \1/2\ the
            states have taken advantage of the option to exclude such
            income or resources. The change has allowed states to simplify
            forms and reduce the administrative burdens of tracking down
            and verifying these obscure forms of income or assets.
    State Options Within SNAP's 3 Month Time Limit
        Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) are limited to 3
    months of SNAP in any 3 year period unless they are working at least
    half time, participating in a qualifying job training activities for an
    average of 20 hours a week, or doing workfare. States and localities
    are not required to help the affected people find jobs or provide a
    place in a job training program that would allow them to keep benefits.
    Very few do so, leaving it to the participants to find enough work or
    training to keep their benefits. As a result, states' first choice
    within the time limit policy is whether to operate the rule as a work
    requirement--whereby they provide work slots to those willing to work--
    or as a time limit where they cut off individuals after 3 months
    regardless of their willingness to work and whether they are searching
    for a job. Most elect to operate the rule as a time limit.
        As a result, the 3 month time limit for childless, non-disabled
    adults who are unable to find 20 hours a week of work is one of the
    harshest provisions in SNAP. By 2000, 3 years after it was first
    implemented, an estimated 900,000 individuals had lost benefits. Since
    the time limit has been in effect, it has severely restricted this
    group's access to the program.\7\ Many of those who have lost benefits
    have faced serious hardship and have not been eligible for other kinds
    of public assistance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ ``Imposing a Time Limit on Food Stamp Receipt: Implementation
    of the Provision and Effects on Participation,'' Mathematica Policy
    Research, 2001, available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/
    files/abawd.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to the choice of whether to operate the rule as a time
    limit or a work requirement, states have two main options within this
    program rule:

       Waivers for areas with sustained levels of relatively high
            unemployment. The authors of the provision in 1996, Reps.
            Kasich and Ney, included some modest state flexibility related
            to this provision. States can waive the time limit in areas
            with high unemployment, meaning that individuals residing in a
            waived area are not subject to the time limit. States request
            these waivers by submitting evidence to FNS that areas within
            the state, such as counties, cities, or tribal reservations,
            have high and sustained unemployment.

          In the past few years, the 3 month limit hasn't been in effect in
            many states. Many states qualified to waive the time limit
            throughout the state due to high unemployment rates during and
            since the Great Recession. But as unemployment rates have
            fallen, fewer areas are qualifying for statewide waivers
            (though in most states there are some counties or other
            localities that remain eligible for waivers because they
            continue to have high unemployment).
          In 2016, the time limit will be in effect in more than 40 states.
            In 23 states, it will be the first time the time limit has been
            in effect since before the recession. (See Figure 9.) Of these
            states, 19 must reimpose the time limit in at least part of the
            state; another four are electing to reimpose the time limit
            despite qualifying for a statewide waiver from the time limit
            because of continued high unemployment.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Ed Bolen, et al., ``More Than 500,000 Adults Will Lose SNAP
    Benefits in 2016 as Waivers Expire,'' Center on Budget and Policy
    Priorities, updated January 21, 2016, http://www.cbpp.org/research/
    food-assistance/more-than-500000-adults-will-lose-snap-benefits-in-
    2016-as-waivers-expire.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 9
    States Newly Implementing SNAP Time Limits in 2016

              Note: These are states that had o statewide waiver of the
            time limit for childless adults aged 18-49 without disabilities
            in 2015, but are implementing the time limit in some or all of
            the state beginning January 2016. The other states either began
            implementing the time limit in 2015 or earlier, or are eligible
            for and will waive the entire state from the time limit in
            2016.

       Individual exemptions. In addition to the mandated
            exemptions from the time limit (for example, disability and
            pregnancy), states have additional flexibility to set their own
            exemption criteria. Each year, a state can exempt roughly 15
            percent of its caseload that is subject to the time limit. Once
            a year, FNS estimates the number of ABAWDs who are subject to
            the 3 month time limit who are not living in a waived area and
            calculates exemptions representing 15 percent of that number.
            Each exemption may be used to exempt one individual for 1
            month, though states can grant continuing exemptions to a
            single individual to exempt that person for a number of months.
            Many states find this flexibility difficult to use and do not
            take advantage of this option at all.
    State Options Within Disqualification and Sanction Policy
        SNAP gives states flexibility, within federally proscribed
    parameters, to tailor SNAP's disqualification and sanction policy for
    participants' noncompliance with certain program rules, including work
    requirements. The 1996 welfare law included several state options to
    ensure that states could coordinate sanction policy across cash and
    food assistance and options for additional SNAP-only sanctions.

       State options to conform SNAP sanctions with TANF work
            rules. The 1996 welfare law included three state options to
            ensure that SNAP work rules and sanctions complement, rather
            than undermine, the rules states establish in their TANF cash
            assistance programs. First, states have the option to
            disqualify an individual from SNAP if she or he has been
            disqualified from TANF for failure to comply with TANF work
            requirements. States also have the option to decrease a
            household's SNAP benefits by up to 25 percent when the
            household's TANF benefits have been cut due to non-compliance
            with a TANF work requirement. Finally, states must impose SNAP
            sanctions on certain TANF households who do not comply with
            TANF work requirements. States have an option to disqualify
            SNAP benefits for the entire family for up to 6 months (unless
            the family has a child under age 6).

       State options for sanctions for non-compliance with SNAP
            work requirements. For SNAP households that do not include TANF
            recipients, the 1996 welfare law also gave states more
            discretion over penalties for violating SNAP's various work-
            related requirements (which are separate and distinct from the
            3 month time limit that childless adults face.) Under SNAP's
            rules, an individual who does not comply with SNAP's work
            requirements is ineligible for a designated period of time,
            with the duration of the sanction increasing with successive
            offenses. States have options for how many months the
            disqualification lasts and whether to terminate SNAP for just
            that individual or the entire household (for up to 6 months).

       Behavior-related sanctions. States have several state
            options related to behavior other than work.

         First, for TANF recipients who are sanctioned for
                violating a TANF requirement related to conduct other than
                a work requirement (i.e., where a family's children who are
                students are required to stay in school or risk losing some
                of the households' cash assistance benefit) the household
                cannot receive increased SNAP benefits because of the TANF
                benefit cut and states may cut the household's SNAP benefit
                by up to 25 percent or import the TANF disqualification
                into SNAP (for the individual disqualified from TANF).

         States may disqualify from SNAP parents who are not
                complying with Child Support Enforcement. This includes
                custodial parents who are not cooperating with states'
                efforts to establish the paternity of the child and obtain
                support payments, and non-custodial parents who are not
                cooperating or paying child support. States also have the
                option to sanction non-custodial parents who are in arrears
                on their child support payments.

       Prohibition on convicted drug felons participating in the
            program. A provision of the 1996 welfare law permanently
            disqualifies individuals from SNAP (and TANF) if they are
            convicted of a state or Federal felony related to possession,
            distribution, or use of controlled substances after August 1996
            (the date of enactment of the welfare law). States may pass
            legislation to opt out of this provision. They also may impose
            certain conditions on former felons who seek SNAP. For example,
            a state may require the individual to periodically submit to a
            drug test. Or a state may opt to impose the ban on people whose
            offense was selling (rather than only possessing) drugs.
            Several states, including Alabama, Missouri, and Texas, have
            recently modified the drug felon ban (almost 20 years after it
            went into effect) as part of broad criminal justice reforms.

        It is important to note that the primary goal of sanctions is to
    provide a mechanism to help bring the household into compliance with
    what is being asked of them rather than as a means to punish households
    who fail to perform required tasks. Very little research has been
    undertaken in SNAP to assess the overall effectiveness of sanctions on
    incentivizing the desired results. Research in the TANF program
    suggests that a large proportion of families that are sanctioned for
    failing to comply with program activities are those with barriers to
    employment such as health and substance abuse problems or low levels of
    education. These findings suggest that work barriers can impede a
    recipient's ability to meet program requirements and may be the cause
    of the failure to comply with requirements, rather than a willful
    refusal to comply. This may be because the particular work activities
    to which a recipient has been assigned are inappropriate, based on her
    individual circumstances, or that appropriate supportive services to
    help the recipient overcome her employment barriers are not in place.
    Placement in an inappropriate activity could arise because the states
    failed to identify the recipient as having a barrier, or a state may
    not have appropriate activities available for individuals whom it
    identifies as having particular barriers to employment.
    Application Requirement Flexibility
        In addition to flexibility regarding certain eligibility and
    benefit rules, SNAP affords states considerable flexibility, within
    Federal standards, in the application and certification requirements
    they apply to households (for example, how often states require
    households to reapply for benefits, and which households they offer a
    telephone interview at application in lieu of a face-to-face
    interview.) This is an area of the program where the ``flavor and
    feel'' of the program can vary quite a bit across states.
        This flexibility is bounded by program integrity standards and
    backed up by fiscal penalties on states for poor payment accuracy.
    SNAP's Quality Control (QC) system has long been one of the most
    rigorous systems of any public benefit program in ensuring payment
    accuracy. Every month states select a representative sample of SNAP
    cases (totaling about 50,000 cases nationally over the year) and have
    independent state reviewers check the accuracy of the state's
    eligibility and benefit decisions within Federal guidelines. Federal
    officials then 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 above the national average.
        In many areas, because of this rigorous QC backstop, Federal rules
    allow states flexibility in the procedures they apply to households.
    For example:

       Certification period length. States have options for how
            often they require households to reapply and have their
            eligibility reassessed. Federal rules require households be
            certified for fixed periods of time. States must require most
            households to reapply for SNAP at least annually, though states
            may allow households with more stable circumstances (i.e.,
            households with elderly or disabled members who have fixed
            incomes) to reapply every 2 years. Within these Federal rules
            states have flexibility for determining how often different
            types of households must reapply.

       Reporting changes. SNAP participants also are required to
            keep the state informed between eligibility reviews about
            certain changes in household circumstances (such as in income
            or household members). Federal rules present two basic
            reporting systems--change reporting (changes must be reported
            within 10 days), and periodic reporting (which requires reports
            periodically, usually every 6 months, though states may require
            reports monthly)--and allow states to determine which
            households they assign to which type of system. SNAP households
            are frequently subject to other programs' reporting
            requirements as well, most notably Medicaid but also child care
            and cash assistance through TANF or Supplemental Security
            Income (SSI).

       In-person or telephone interviews. SNAP rules require
            households to be interviewed at initial certification, and most
            households must be interviewed at least once a year thereafter.
            In recent years, in recognition of the burden that traveling to
            a local office can present to working families, seniors, and
            people with disabilities, and those with limited access to
            transportation, FNS has given states more flexibility in
            determining which households must visit an office for an in-
            person interview and for which households a telephone interview
            may be conducted.

       Verification. In SNAP certain items such as income,
            identity, and questionable information must be verified, either
            through a data match, household documents, or a contact with a
            reliable source. But states have a wide degree of latitude on
            what other items they require to be verified.

        As mentioned, all of these choices operate within Federal
    standards, and the rigorous QC system provides assurances that states
    make carefully considered choices that protect Federal fiscal
    interests.
    State Operations and Basic Business Model
        Like with application and certification rules, states have a wide
    degree of flexibility for how they set up their SNAP program
    operations. Federal rules proscribe certain basic customer service
    standards; for example, most eligible households are expected to be
    provided benefits within 30 days of application (and, for the most
    destitute within 7 days). And, of course, states cannot discriminate,
    cannot turn people seeking help away, and must comply with other laws
    that protect privacy and people with disabilities, for example.
        But beyond these basic protections and standards, states have
    enormous flexibility to tailor their program operations--for example,
    how they staff their offices, coordinate with other programs, and
    deliver SNAP benefits. As a result, SNAP participants experience a wide
    range of different programs across the United States, and even within a
    given state, different counties and local offices may differ
    dramatically in their look and feel. Below are a series of examples of
    state flexibility in operations.

       Office structures. States have wide latitude over how they
            staff and structure their offices and develop and operate their
            own technology systems. So, for example, many, but all not all,
            states have online applications and other services such as the
            ability for applicants and participants to check their benefits
            online. Some states use call centers to centralize telephone
            operations, while others route inquiry calls to local
            eligibility offices.

       Staffing model. States can assign households to a particular
            eligibility worker or can operate on a ``task model,'' more
            like an assembly line, where staff share cases and different
            workers specialize in different certification activities, such
            as intake, interviewing, and case processing. Some might assign
            specially trained staff to address the particular needs of
            seniors or refugee groups. Some states make broad use of
            clerical staff, while others fully train almost all staff on
            the program's eligibility rules.

       Coordination with other programs. States may offer SNAP as a
            stand-alone program, or may coordinate SNAP eligibility with
            other human services programs. Almost every state coordinates
            eligibility for SNAP with eligibility for TANF cash assistance
            (though employment and training may be separate), and about 40
            states coordinate with health coverage through Medicaid. Some
            states also operate their energy assistance, child care, and/or
            refugee assistance programs in the same offices and using the
            same staff and eligibility systems as SNAP.

       Business process philosophy. Some states handle
            applications, mandated renewals or matches that require
            resolution as they come to the state. Other states seek to
            anticipate work and get ahead of it. For example if a client
            calls to report a change, a call-center worker might also check
            to see if the client is due for a renewal soon. If so, the
            worker could use that opportunity to conduct a quick interview
            with the client, run data matches and successfully complete the
            renewal. This proactive approach typically reduces workload for
            the state and provides better service to citizens.

       Speed of application processing. Even within the 7 and 30
            day Federal processing standards, states vary significantly on
            how quickly they determine eligibility. Some states, for
            example Idaho, focus on same-day services--aiming to ``touch''
            each case only once, and finalize the eligibility determination
            for as many cases as possible the same day. Other states take
            the full 30 days allowed under Federal rules, waiting several
            weeks to schedule interviews and process verification. Both
            types of states are operating within Federal standards.

       Benefit issuance. States also have flexibility in how they
            time benefit issuance. Each household receives its benefits
            monthly, but some states spread the date of issuance out over
            the first week of the month or the first 20 days, for example.

       Technology. One of the areas where states diverge the most
            from each other is the quality of their technology. Some states
            use a single modernized computer system across multiple
            programs. These systems offer them the ability to undertake
            speedy data matches (while on the phone with a client), review
            scanned client documents, chat with clients and accurately
            apply current eligibility rules. Work can be moved to where
            resources are available because it is all digitized. Clients
            have access to online accounts where they can transact business
            and may even have a mobile app on their phones where they can
            upload documents or quickly answer the states' questions. Call
            centers answer the phone within minutes and have access to the
            necessary information to complete tasks with clients over the
            phone rather than forcing the client to take time off of work
            and travel to the local welfare office. Other states are
            working with decades-old systems, paper files, traditional
            phones (i.e., no headsets for workers on the phone) and have to
            wait for batch matching with third-party data systems such as
            the Social Security system to be undertaken by a central
            office. These differences are substantial and have a large
            impact on how the state conducts its business and how flexible
            and nimble it can be. For states with old computer systems, the
            reprogramming necessary to simplify program rules or align SNAP
            with other programs can be very difficult, if not impossible,
            or take years to implement.
    Regulatory Waiver Authority
        Under Federal law, USDA can allow states to waive certain SNAP
    regulatory requirements in an effort to test innovative ways to improve
    program efficiency and to enhance client access. FNS has approved
    countless waivers using this authority. It keeps a public database of
    regulatory waivers; currently, there appear to be over 400 approved
    waivers.
        For example, states have waivers to issue electronic notices to
    households that request them, in lieu of paper notices and to dispense
    with requirements on scheduling interviews if they commit to interview
    applicants ``on demand'' when they call a call center. Other examples
    are modest variations on benefit policy such as with respect to the
    calculation for how to average a student's work hours. We would expect
    that early testing on electronic notices with a few states would result
    in guidance to all states on the use of such notices if they wish to
    use them. Similarly, the waivers on averaging student work hours might
    result in a revised policy that reflects states' requests for more
    flexibility in that area.
    Demonstration Waiver Authority
        SNAP law has many state options built into its basic structure. In
    addition, in 1996, as part of the welfare law, Congress substantially
    expanded the program's waiver authority to allow for greater state
    experimentation in SNAP. States can seek waivers to change virtually
    any aspect of the benefit structure and delivery system. The few
    limitations that Congress decided to retain after careful consideration
    are necessary to preserve the program's fiscal integrity and to
    maintain SNAP as a nutritional safety net.
        For example, to preserve fiscal integrity, the 1996 welfare law
    prohibited states from waiving the requirement that states contribute
    \1/2\ of administrative costs. Without this restriction, states could
    seek waivers that entail cutting benefits and converting the savings
    into an enhanced administrative matching rate. Similarly, states cannot
    waive the prohibition against giving SNAP to residents of most
    institutions. Without this prohibition, states could use benefits to
    fund meals in state prisons or mental hospitals and offset the costs
    through SNAP benefit cuts.
        To maintain the nutritional safety net, a handful of critical
    program rules cannot be waived. These include:

       The individual entitlement to benefits for eligible persons
            who are not violating work or other conduct requirements.
            Without this protection, states could make various categories
            of households ineligible for benefits or establish waiting
            lists in order to secure a source of funds for other purposes.

       The gross income limit for households that do not include
            elderly and disabled members. Without this prohibition, states
            could reduce benefits for poor and near-poor households to
            provide benefits for some groups of households at higher income
            levels, or could reduce the income limit for everyone to shift
            resources from SNAP benefits to other uses.

       Provision of timely service, such as the right to apply for
            SNAP when a household first contacts the SNAP office and to
            receive benefits within 30 days if eligible. Without these
            provisions, households in severe need could have to wait for
            long periods before receiving assistance.

        Another important provision in current waiver authority
    appropriately distinguishes between demonstration projects that operate
    in several counties and are designed to test new approaches and waivers
    that simply allow a state to alter on a statewide basis a Federal
    policy it does not favor. In the first type of waiver, which represents
    the type of approach followed over the years in a number of carefully
    evaluated pilot projects in various low-income programs, states are
    allowed broad discretion to alter the program's benefit structure.
    (States may not make entire categories of low-income households
    ineligible for SNAP if these households are fully complying with all
    work and other behavioral requirements, but they can test changes that
    result in large changes in the benefits levels for which households
    qualify.) In the latter type of waiver involving statewide policy
    changes, states can still change many program rules, but there is a
    limit on the proportion of a state's caseload whose benefits can be cut
    by more than 20 percent.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Dorothy Rosenbaum, ``States Have Significant Flexibility in the
    Food Stamp Program,'' Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 17,
    2002, http://www.cbpp.org/archives/6-17-02fs.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This provision was included in the 1996 welfare law to ensure that
    waivers cannot simply eliminate or sharply reduce SNAP on a statewide
    basis for major categories of low-income households so long as the
    households are faithfully complying with program rules. Congress
    included it as an appropriate protection for a program that is designed
    to enable poor families and individuals to obtain a minimum adequate
    diet and in which the Federal Government pays 100 percent of the
    benefit costs.
        Examples of demonstration waivers under this authority include
    demonstrations to test:

       the impact of simplifying the process by which eligible
            households can claim the medical expense deduction, and

       a simplified application process for seniors who qualify for
            SSI to be enrolled into SNAP.

        While not required under Federal law, USDA has consistently
    required that these demonstration projects be cost neutral to the
    Federal Government to ensure that this authority is not abused to
    expand or contract the program.
    SNAP Employment and Training Programs
        SNAP employment and training (E&T) is one of the most flexible
    program features of SNAP. This ensures that states can design programs
    that are suited to their local economic conditions in terms of which
    populations they target with services, what services to offer, and in
    which localities. The primary limitation states experience under
    employment and training is limited Federal grant funds. States are,
    however, eligible for unlimited Federal matching funds to double state
    investments in operate SNAP employment and training programs. Under
    SNAP rules, all adult recipients are required to register for work
    unless they are elderly, disabled, caring for a child under age 6,
    already complying with a TANF or unemployment compensation work
    requirement, or otherwise not expected to work. States have very broad
    discretion to require work registrants to look for jobs, to participate
    in employment and training activities, or to work off their benefits.
        In 1996, Congress restructured the SNAP E&T program to serve
    primarily unemployed childless adults. As mentioned above, under the
    welfare law, such individuals may receive SNAP benefits for only 3
    months out of any 3 year period unless they are participating in a work
    program. States criticized the provisions directing most Federal SNAP
    E&T money to unemployed childless adults as overly restrictive, and the
    reauthorization legislation enacted in May 2002 as part of the farm
    bill returned the E&T program to its prior, more flexible design.
    States once again have almost complete flexibility over how they
    operate their E&T programs. They may determine which populations to
    serve (for example, parents in families with children or unemployed
    childless adults) and select what types of employment and training
    services to provide. They may access Federal matching funds for these
    employment and training services and related work support services,
    including transportation and child care.
        As part of the 201[4] Farm Bill, Congress authorized ten pilot
    projects to test whether SNAP E&T could more effectively connect
    unemployed and underemployed recipients to work. The selected pilots,
    announced in March 2015, include a mix of mandatory and voluntary E&T
    programs. Several of the pilots target individuals who face significant
    barriers to employment, including homeless adults, the long-term
    unemployed, individuals in the correctional system, and individuals
    with substance addiction. Each pilot involves multiple partners to
    connect workers to resources and services already available in the
    community. These pilots will help both states and the Federal
    Government understand how SNAP E&T can best contribute to recipients
    ultimately securing jobs that provide economic security and end their
    need for SNAP.
    Other Flexibilities
        As I noted above, this section is meant to give a sense of the
    categories of flexibility in the program rather than a comprehensive
    catalogue of all the state options and choices within SNAP. Within each
    category there are other examples, many of them less significant or
    less popular than the listed items. And, other program features provide
    flexibility as well. SNAP provides a nutrition education grant to
    states under which states can pursue nutrition education programming of
    their choice so long as it is evidence based. States also have
    flexibility in establishing and operating outreach services to help
    connect eligible but unenrolled individuals and families with SNAP.
    And, if a state experiences a natural disaster, states have the option
    to establish special disaster-SNAP (D-SNAP) that is customized to the
    needs in the impacted community within certain parameters.
    States Are Not Always Aware of SNAP's Flexibility
        I have worked on SNAP for more than 20 years. Much of my work is
    providing technical assistance to state officials who wish to explore
    options to improve their program operations. It has been my great
    pleasure to visit local offices and work with states all around the
    country. Most recently, I led technical assistance to states as a part
    of the Work Support Strategies Initiative (WSS)--a multi-year, multi-
    state initiative to help low-income working families obtain the package
    of work supports for which they are eligible, while enabling states to
    streamline administration. WSS worked directly with Colorado, Idaho,
    Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina since 2011.
    Through grants and expert technical assistance, WSS helps states reform
    and align their systems for delivering work-support programs intended
    to increase families' well-being and stability--particularly SNAP,
    Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and child
    care assistance through the Child Care and Development Block Grant.
    Through WSS, states seek to streamline and integrate service delivery,
    use 21st Century technology, and apply innovative business practices to
    improve administrative efficiency and reduce burdens on both states and
    working families.
        Based on my experience, many states are not fully aware of the
    level of flexibility available to them. They often assume that their
    states' SNAP program rules are mandated by the Federal Government.
    Instead, their program is a mixture of Federal rules and a set of
    choices by their predecessors in the state that was informed by
    circumstances or limitations that may no longer be relevant. This is
    particularly true of state computer systems--when states purchase
    systems that are inflexible, they often call on the Federal agencies to
    provide flexibility to let them align the programs with their
    technology.
        It also can be difficult for state officials to assess which rules
    were mandated and which are the result of prior state choices--now
    codified in state manuals and computer programming. This doesn't mean
    there aren't Federal requirements in SNAP and other health and human
    services programs--there certainly are. But, often states perceive SNAP
    as far more rigid than it is. One of the biggest areas that states
    struggle with is how to coordinate policies and procedures across
    programs. Perfect alignment isn't possible, but there's far more
    opportunity for coordination than many realize. We saw this recently
    when we interviewed states and conducted site visits on how states
    coordinate SNAP and Medicaid renewals. In many cases, the limitations
    of their computer systems were driving policy decisions, rather than
    policy choices driving the state's computer system 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 available to them. Other
    times, differences between programs are by design and originate from
    the programs' differing goals. And, there are times when states
    discover differences between programs that raise reasonable questions.
    For example, several states have asked if they can use the wage and
    unemployment data that employers report to states and Social Security
    Administration to help verify household income as the basis for
    eligibility and benefit-level determination. Traditionally, this would
    not be allowed in SNAP because the data would be consider too old (up
    to 4 or 5 months) to use as a current assessment of household
    circumstances. Nevertheless, USDA is allowing a few states to test this
    approach in an effort to determine if this approach is workable,
    particularly for households with very stable income. Another example is
    that Medicaid allows and encourages states to use third-party data
    matches to verify income even if the information is a little dated,
    while SNAP historically has required states to gather current
    information, even from households with very stable employment
    arrangements. In such a case, the Federal Government can grant states
    waivers from Federal SNAP requirements to test whether allowing SNAP to
    use other programs' rules is appropriate and cost effective. I believe
    Texas is currently testing this approach, which may help USDA determine
    whether and under what conditions this approach may be workable in
    SNAP.
        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 different from policy in another major
    program such as Medicaid, it would be helpful for USDA to be aware of
    those differences, to flag them for states, and to be able to advise
    states on the flexibility they may have to harmonize the rules across
    programs. (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 recent changes in
    Medicaid could be affecting SNAP operations at the local level. USDA
    can do more here, and I encourage them to do so.
    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. And, SNAP has exacting standards with respect
    to eligibility determinations.
        Congress and USDA have worked hard to balance the need to maintain
    SNAP's successful structure and design with some state flexibility to
    ensure the program is able to adapt to local circumstances, respond to
    the needs of under-served groups such as working families and seniors,
    and test new ideas to improve the program's efficiency without
    compromising its effectiveness. In general, these options are meant to
    augment SNAP, rather than weaken or compromise its ability to meet the
    basic nutrition needs of struggling Americans. As you consider state
    flexibility and state options in the program, I urge you to keep that
    goal as your priority.
        Thank you.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Dean. Ms. Cunnyngham, 5
    minutes.

     STATEMENT OF KAREN CUNNYNGHAM, SENIOR RESEARCHER, MATHEMATICA
                   POLICY RESEARCH, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Ms. Cunnyngham. Thank you, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member
    Peterson, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to
    testify on state options and SNAP. Today I will demonstrate
    ways in which SNAP quality control data can be used to analyze
    the effective state policy options on the SNAP population.
    These data are derived from the monthly quality control reviews
    that states conduct on a sample of SNAP households. I will
    focus on what we know about how state options regarding SNAP
    eligibility and time limits affect SNAP participation. I will
    conclude with some thoughts on opportunities to continue
    building the evidence base to inform decision-making on SNAP.
        One key policy option available to states is the use of
    broad-based programs to extend categorical eligibility to
    households receiving a non-cash TANF-funded benefit. States may
    use this option to increase the number of people eligible for
    SNAP, and streamline the eligibility determination process.
    Although categorically eligible people are not subject to SNAP
    income and resource limits, benefits for these households are
    determined under the same rules that apply to other households.
    As a result, only those with income low enough to qualify for a
    benefit, or that quality for a minimum benefit, actually
    receive one.
        Thirty-nine states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the
    Virgin Islands have established broad-based categorical
    eligibility programs. They have some flexibility in setting the
    eligibility criteria for these programs. Thirteen use the SNAP
    gross income limit for households without an elderly member, or
    a member with a disability; 28 implemented a higher gross
    income limit for those households; and one state allows
    households with a child to have a higher gross income limit.
    Most of these programs do not have a resource test, while five
    states impose resource limits that are higher than the SNAP
    limits.
        We estimate that, in Fiscal Year 2014, eight percent of
    SNAP households were eligible solely through state expanded
    categorical eligibility programs. Specifically, SNAP quality
    control data indicate that three percent of SNAP households
    were eligible through higher income limits. Less than one
    percent of all SNAP benefits went to these households. Their
    average monthly benefit was $58, compared to $260 for
    households that passed the SNAP income tests. Using
    supplemental data, we estimate an additional five percent of
    SNAP households will not have passed the SNAP resource test.
        States also make choices regarding work programs and time
    limits. Many non-elderly adult participants are subject to SNAP
    work requirements. Certain groups are exempt, such as people
    working at least 30 hours per week, or caring for a young
    child. Participants who are subject to the general SNAP
    requirements, under age 50, and not living with children must
    fulfill additional work requirements, such as participating in
    a qualified employment and training program. Those who do not
    comply are subject to time limits on SNAP receipt. States are
    allowed to provide exemptions to the time limits for up to 15
    percent of their case load subject to time limits. States also
    may apply for waivers from the time limits for participants
    living in areas with a high unemployment rate, or an
    insufficient number of jobs. Currently, seven states, the
    District of Columbia, and the two territories are approved for
    a state time limit waiver, and 27 states have waivers for
    certain areas.
        The SNAP quality control data show that the majority of
    SNAP participants do not fit the criteria for being subject to
    work requirements. In Fiscal Year 2014, 88 percent of SNAP
    participants were exempt, most because they were children,
    elderly adults, or individuals with a disability. Among those
    who were subject to work requirements, only \1/3\ potentially
    faced time limits because they were not participating in an
    employment and training program, or otherwise fulfilling the
    additional work requirements. The majority of those facing time
    limits received a state exemption, or were in a waiver area. In
    all, just over 200,000 individuals a month were not meeting the
    requirements, and so were receiving time-limited benefits.
        One of the tools that USDA uses to examine categorical
    eligibility, time limits, and other state options is
    microsimulation modeling. Additional sophisticated data sets
    and tools could further advance the use of evidence and
    decision-making about SNAP at both the state and Federal
    levels. An example of a new resource is the data sets being
    created by the Census Bureau, in cooperation with USDA and
    states, that link state SNAP administrative data to survey
    data. Moreover, new analytic tools, such as rapid cycle
    evaluation, can help states determine whether the policy
    options they put in place have the desired effect on program
    access, administrative costs, and benefit accuracy.
        As Congress continues its full scale review of SNAP,
    sophisticated data and tools can lead to more informed
    decision-making, and a new perspective on the populations that
    the program is intended to help. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Cunnyngham follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Karen Cunnyngham, Senior Researcher, Mathematica
                       Policy Research, Washington, D.C.
    What the Data Reveal About State SNAP Options
        Thank you, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members
    of the Committee for the opportunity to testify on state options in
    SNAP.
        I am an associate director of the data analytics division at
    Mathematica Policy Research and the director of a project that measures
    SNAP access, trends, and impacts.\1\ For over 3 decades, Mathematica
    has been conducting related projects for the Food and Nutrition Service
    (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). As part of the
    current project, we develop and maintain the SNAP microsimulation
    models that FNS uses (1) to assess proposed changes to SNAP, (2) to
    develop annual budgets, and (3) to conduct supporting research.
    Mathematica also prepares the edited SNAP quality control (QC) data
    files, which are the primary source of information on the
    characteristics of the SNAP caseload. The data are used to assess the
    composition and demographic and economic characteristics of SNAP
    households and to measure the potential effects of legislative changes
    to program rules on SNAP participants. The annual SNAP QC databases are
    publicly available on USDA's website.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Project team members Katherine Bencio, Esa Eslami, Kelsey
    Farson Gray, Sarah Lauffer, and Joshua Leftin, and additional
    Mathematica staff Steve Bruns, Scott Cody, Jennifer de Vallance, and
    Carmen Ferro contributed to the preparation of this testimony.
        \2\ https://host76.mathematica-mpr.com/fns/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Through a variety of policy options, states have the ability to
    adapt SNAP to best meet the needs of their low-income populations and
    improve the efficiency of their SNAP operations. Such policy options
    allow states to simplify the application and eligibility determination
    process, streamline program administration, and expand SNAP eligibility
    within certain parameters. (The Appendix provides an overview of
    selected options and the number of states using them over time.) States
    also make choices about their employment and training programs and have
    some flexibility in determining which adults age 18 to 49, without
    disabilities, and living in households without children are exempt from
    time limits on SNAP benefit receipt. An evaluation currently underway
    is testing innovative strategies for increasing employment and earnings
    among SNAP participants and reducing their dependence on SNAP and other
    public assistance programs. The ten pilot programs offer diverse
    services and target different groups of SNAP participants. Findings
    from the evaluation will give policymakers and program administrators
    insight into effective strategies for increasing employment and
    earnings and decreasing public assistance.
        In my testimony today, I will demonstrate ways in which SNAP QC
    data and other resources may be used to analyze how the policy options
    selected by states affect the SNAP population. I will focus on two sets
    of policy options--those affecting the resource and income thresholds
    used to determine SNAP eligibility and those affecting work
    requirements and time limits. At the end, I will mention additional
    tools and opportunities for continuing to build the evidence base to
    help ensure that the program is efficiently and effectively serving the
    target population.
    State Vehicle Rules and Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility
        Federal SNAP eligibility policies limit the amount of income and
    resources that SNAP participants may have. However, through policy
    options, states have some latitude to adopt the eligibility criteria
    they deem best for their jurisdictions. For example, under Federal
    rules for determining whether a household's resources are below the
    applicable threshold, the value of some household vehicles is counted
    toward the resource limit. States, however, may align SNAP vehicle
    rules with vehicle rules for a TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy
    Families)--funded program as long as the latter rules are less
    restrictive than the Federal SNAP rules. Currently, all but four states
    (Delaware, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Washington) and one territory
    (the Virgin Islands) have aligned their vehicle rules for SNAP
    households that face a resource test with those governing another state
    program. In doing so, 29 jurisdictions exclude all vehicles from the
    SNAP resource test. The remaining jurisdictions have aligned their
    vehicle rules with programs that (1) exclude one vehicle per household,
    person, or adult; (2) exclude $10,000 to $15,000 from the equity or
    fair market value of one or more vehicles; or (3) rely on a combination
    of the above.
        States also have the option to use certain broad-based programs
    that provide a simple service--a TANF-funded brochure on domestic
    violence, for example--to confer categorical eligibility on a large
    number of households. In some states, households participating in
    narrowly targeted, noncash TANF-funded programs such as work support or
    child care may also be categorically eligible for SNAP. Given that
    categorically eligible households are not subject to the Federal income
    and resource limits, the SNAP application and eligibility determination
    process is simplified for such households. However, benefits for
    categorically eligible households are determined under the same rules
    that apply to other eligible SNAP households and are based on household
    income. Accordingly, some households may be categorically eligible for
    SNAP but not qualify for a SNAP benefit.
        Thirty-nine states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin
    Islands have established broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE)
    programs. States have some flexibility in setting the eligibility
    criteria for the noncash benefit provided by these programs. Five
    states (Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, and Texas) currently impose
    resource limits between $5,000 and $25,000 on some households while the
    rest have eliminated the resource test. (Pennsylvania used a resource
    test from mid-2012 through mid-2015.) Thirteen states have retained the
    Federal SNAP gross income limit for most households without an elderly
    member or a member with a disability, 28 states or jurisdictions have
    raised the gross income limit to between 160 and 200 percent of the
    Federal poverty limit for those households, and one state, New
    Hampshire, raised the gross income limit for households with a child
    age 21 or younger.
        In Table 1, we show the average monthly percentage of SNAP
    households in FY 2014 that met Federal income guidelines, including
    pure public assistance households, and the percentage that was eligible
    only through state expanded categorical eligibility policies.
    Nationally, 3.3 percent of SNAP participants in FY 2014 had income
    higher than the applicable Federal income thresholds. Among these
    households, 47 percent had income greater than the Federal gross income
    threshold; 39 percent had net income over the Federal limit; and 14
    percent would have failed both the Federal gross and net income tests.
    In states that used a higher gross income limit for households without
    an elderly member or a member with a disability, almost five percent of
    participants would not have passed the Federal income tests.

     Table 1. SNAP Households by Eligibility and Presence and Type of State
                     Categorical Eligibility Policy, FY 2014
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent that
                                Total SNAP     Percent that     would have
                                households    passed Federal  failed Federal
                                  (000s)        income tests    income tests
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All                               22,445            96.7             3.3
    State had no broad-based           2,816            99.9             0.1
     categorical eligibility
     policy
    State used Federal gross           6,665            98.5             1.5
     income limits for most
     households without an
     elderly or disabled
     member
    State had a higher gross          12,911            95.1             4.9
     income limit for most
     households without an
     elderly or disabled
     member
    State had a higher gross              53            94.3             5.7
     income limit for
     households with a child
     age 21 or younger
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: FY 2014 SNAP QC data file.

        As seen in Table 2, less than one percent of all SNAP benefits went
    to households that would have failed the Federal income tests but that
    were eligible for SNAP through state expanded eligibility policies. The
    average monthly benefit for these households was $58 compared to $260
    for households meeting the Federal income criteria. Among states that
    used a higher gross income limit for most households without an elderly
    member or a member with a disability, 1.2 percent of SNAP benefits went
    to households eligible only through state eligibility expansions.

              The average monthly benefit for households that would have
            failed Federal income tests but were eligible for SNAP through
            state expanded eligibility policies was $58 compared to $260
            for households meeting the Federal income criteria.

        The discussion thus far has focused on categorically eligible SNAP
    households that would fail the Federal income tests. Additional
    categorically eligible households would pass the Federal income tests
    but fail the Federal resource test. Because the SNAP QC data do not
    contain information on the resources of most categorically eligible
    households, other data must be used to estimate the latter group. In
    work for FNS to estimate SNAP participation rates, we use a regression
    equation estimated on data from the Survey of Income and Program
    Participation (SIPP) to predict the probability that households meeting
    Federal income guidelines would fail the SNAP Federal resource test. We
    estimate that an additional 4.7 percent of SNAP participants would not
    have met the Federal SNAP resource test. In all, we estimate that about
    eight percent of SNAP participants were eligible solely through state
    expanded categorical eligibility options.

                          Table 2. SNAP Benefits by Eligibility and Presence and Type of State Categorical Eligibility Policy, FY 2014
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Benefits going to households that     Benefits going to households that
                                                                                       passed Federal income tests        would have failed Federal income
                                              Total benefits    Average  benefit --------------------------------------                 tests
                                                  ($000)              ($)                                              -------------------------------------
                                                                                     Row percent        Average ($)        Row percent        Average ($)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All                                             5,689,647                253               99.2                260                0.8                 58
    State had no broad-based categorical              724,699                257               99.9                258                0.1                113
     eligibility policy
    State used Federal gross income limits          1,700,361                255               99.7                258                0.3                 48
     for most households without an
     elderly or disabled member
    State had higher gross income limit             3,253,279                252               98.8                262                1.2                 59
     for most households without an
     elderly or disabled member
    State had higher gross income limit                11,308                215               97.4                223                2.6                 96
     for households with a child age 21 or
     younger
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: FY 2014 SNAP QC data file.

    Work Requirements
        States also have some options about the employment and training
    programs they offer andwhich SNAP participants face time limits. Many
    working-age SNAP participants are required toregister for work, accept
    suitable employment if it is offered, not voluntarily quit a job or
    reducework hours, and participate in an employment and training program
    if the state agency makes aprogram referral. Exceptions are made for
    individuals determined to be:

       Mentally or physically unfit for employment.

       Employed at least 30 hours per week.

       Responsible for the care of a dependent child under age 6 or
            an incapacitated person.

       Attending school at least half-time.

       Complying with TANF work requirements.

       Receiving unemployment insurance.

       Participating in a drug addiction or alcohol treatment
            program.

        SNAP participants who are subject to the general SNAP work
    requirements and are (1) age 18 to 49, (2) residing in a SNAP household
    without children, and (3) not pregnant are generally subject to time-
    limited participation unless they fulfill additional work requirements.
    Specifically, these individuals are restricted to 3 months of SNAP
    benefits in any 36 month period unless they (1) work or participate in
    a qualified employment and training program for at least 20 hours per
    week or (2) participate in a workfare program for the number of hours
    equivalent to their SNAP benefit divided by the minimum wage.
    Participants are exempt from the time limit if they live in a waiver
    area or have been granted a discretionary exemption by the state.
    States may apply for waivers for certain geographic areas, including
    the entire state if applicable, if (1) the area has an unemployment
    rate exceeding ten percent or (2) the state can demonstrate with other
    economic criteria that the proposed waiver area has an insufficient
    number of jobs to provide employment. States are allowed to provide
    discretionary exemptions for up to 15 percent of their SNAP caseload
    subject to the time limit.
        The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) allowed states to
    suspend time limits on benefits from April 2009 through September 2010.
    Subsequently, states that met the criteria for extended unemployment
    insurance benefits continued to have the option of suspending time
    limits. Currently, only seven states, the District of Columbia, Guam,
    and the Virgin Islands are approved for a statewide waiver of time
    limits. Another 27 states have time-limit waivers approved for certain
    areas of the state.
        The majority of SNAP participants do not fit the criteria for being
    subject to work requirements and time limits. The group subject to time
    limits is particularly small, in part because members of the group may
    receive SNAP benefits for only a short period. In FY 2014, a monthly
    average of 87.7 percent of SNAP participants were not subject to work
    requirements (Table 3). The majority were children (44.2 percent of all
    participants), adults age 60 or older (10.1 percent), or individuals
    with a disability (9.7 percent). Almost \2/3\ of SNAP participants
    subject to work registration, or 7.8 percent of all SNAP participants,
    were not subject to time limits. The majority of work registrants not
    subject to time limits was over age 49 or residing in a SNAP household
    with a child. Among the 4.5 percent of all SNAP participants
    potentially subject to time limits, 80 percent, or 3.7 percent of all
    participants, were in a waiver area or received a state exemption. (In
    FY 2014, 42 states qualified for a statewide time-limit waiver.) Half
    of the remaining one percent of SNAP participants (a monthly average of
    203,000 individuals) did not meet work requirements and therefore were
    receiving time-limited benefits.

    Table 3. SNAP Participants Subject to Work Requirements and Time Limits,
                                     FY 2014
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Number
                                                       (000s)      Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total SNAP participants                              45,874        100.0
      Not subject to work requirements                   40,246         87.7
        Under age 18                                     20,271         44.2
        Over age 59                                       4,651         10.1
        With a disability, as defined by SNAP             4,461          9.7
         rules
        Employed at least 30 hours per week or            3,690          8.0
         minimum-wage equivalent
        In SNAP household with child age 5 or             2,983          6.5
         under or person with a disability (one
         caregiver per SNAP household)
        Receiving cash TANF or unemployment                 929          2.0
         compensation or reported as participating
         in non-SNAP employment and training
         program
        Enrolled at least half-time in a                     39          0.1
         qualifying school or training program
        Reported as exempt from work registration         3,222          7.0
         for other reason
      Subject to work requirements                        5,628         12.3
        Not subject to time limits                        3,563          7.8
          Over age 49                                     1,106          2.4
          In SNAP household with a child                  1,899          4.1
          Reported as not subject to time limits            558          1.2
           for other reason
        Subject to time limits                            2,065          4.5
          Employed at least 20 hours per week or            184          0.4
           minimum-wage equivalent, or reported as
           meeting work requirements
          Reported as in a waiver area or                 1,678          3.7
           receiving a state exemption
          Receiving time-limited benefits                   203          0.4
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: FY 2014 SNAP QC data file.
    Note: Sets of subgroups are mutually exclusive.

        In FY 2014, the average monthly percentage of a state's population
    subject to work requirements ranged from fewer than three percent in
    Delaware, Massachusetts, and Oregon to over 20 percent in Florida and
    Michigan (Table 4). The percentage subject to time limits varied from
    less than \1/2\ a percent in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Nevada to
    nine percent or more in Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi. The average
    monthly benefit per person was higher for participants subject to work
    requirements ($162) and subject to time limits ($178) than the average
    benefit per person for all participants ($124).

                           Table 4. SNAP Participants Subject to Time Limits by State, FY 2014
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Percent receiving
                                  Total SNAP         Percent subject to    Percent subject to       time-limited
                             participants (000s)     work  requirements        time limits            benefits
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   All                  45,874                   12.3                   4.5                   0.4
               Alabama                     893                   14.4                   6.1                   0.0
                Alaska                      87                   16.7                   6.2                   0.0
               Arizona                   1,011                   10.1                   1.4                   0.0
              Arkansas                     476                   12.8                   5.3                   0.0
            California                   4,256                   13.6                   6.0                   0.0
              Colorado                     497                    6.2                   2.0                   0.8
           Connecticut                     428                   19.1                   0.7                   0.0
              Delaware                     149                    2.4                   2.0                   1.1
    District of Columbia                   140                   12.7                   5.1                   0.1
               Florida                   3,526                   20.9                  10.6                   0.0
               Georgia                   1,784                   19.5                   9.0                   1.2
                  Guam                      46                    0.1                   0.1                   0.0
                Hawaii                     191                   13.6                   6.1                   0.0
                 Idaho                     208                    4.4                   1.8                   0.0
              Illinois                   1,954                   11.1                   7.5                   0.0
               Indiana                     877                   11.7                   3.9                   0.0
                  Iowa                     405                    7.5                   2.1                   1.7
                Kansas                     293                    8.7                   1.9                   1.5
              Kentucky                     803                   19.2                   8.9                   0.0
                      Louisiana            874                   15.9                   6.1                   0.0
                 Maine                     229                    9.8                   4.8                   0.0
              Maryland                     779                    7.1                   0.0                   0.0
         Massachusetts                     853                    2.4                   0.3                   0.0
              Michigan                   1,664                   21.4                   6.8                   0.0
             Minnesota                     521                    8.2                   3.5                   2.5
           Mississippi                     655                   19.7                   9.1                   0.0
              Missouri                     853                    8.3                   3.3                   0.0
               Montana                     121                   16.0                   4.5                   0.0
              Nebraska                     172                    5.0                   0.8                   0.5
                Nevada                     375                   11.8                   0.4                   0.0
         New Hampshire                     108                    6.0                   1.4                   1.1
            New Jersey                     874                    9.0                   0.8                   0.1
            New Mexico                     426                    5.8                   4.5                   0.0
              New York                   3,039                    9.5                   1.2                   0.3
        North Carolina                   1,555                   12.6                   5.1                   0.0
          North Dakota                      53                    7.7                   2.1                   0.7
                  Ohio                   1,732                   11.7                   4.3                   3.0
              Oklahoma                     592                   12.7                   3.1                   2.0
                Oregon                     782                    2.6                   1.5                   0.0
          Pennsylvania                   1,782                    8.5                   2.6                   0.0
          Rhode Island                     174                   18.5                   7.6                   0.0
        South Carolina                     832                   17.5                   6.7                   0.1
          South Dakota                      99                   10.0                   3.8                   0.9
             Tennessee                   1,303                   19.2                   4.9                   0.0
                 Texas                   3,838                    7.1                   1.5                   1.1
                  Utah                     227                    6.0                   1.1                   0.8
               Vermont                      92                    4.6                   1.6                   1.1
        Virgin Islands                      28                   12.3                   4.0                   0.0
              Virginia                     914                   13.6                   4.3                   3.0
            Washington                   1,085                    3.7                   2.0                   0.0
         West Virginia                     354                   14.2                   0.8                   0.0
             Wisconsin                     831                    7.3                   2.7                   0.1
               Wyoming                      35                    7.9                   1.2                   0.9
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: FY 2014 SNAP QC data file.

    Additional Tools for Assessing Effects of State Options
        In addition to the SNAP QC data, microsimulation models can provide
    policymakers with valuable insights into the potential effects of
    program changes on SNAP eligibility, participation, and benefits. For
    example, the models can estimate the effect of changes to SNAP resource
    limits or income deductions. Mathematica has developed two models for
    FNS--one based on the SNAP QC database and another based on SIPP and
    Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement data.
        Even more sophisticated data sets and tools could further advance
    the use of evidence in decision making about SNAP at both the state and
    Federal levels. An example of a new and valuable resource is the data
    sets being created by the Census Bureau in cooperation with USDA and
    states that link state SNAP administrative data to survey data. These
    data sets allow USDA to better understand the circumstances of SNAP
    participants, including how individuals who live together form SNAP
    households and, in some cases, the resources available to SNAP
    participants. Moreover, new analytic tools, such as rapid cycle
    evaluation, can help states determine whether the policy options they
    put in place have the desired effect on program access, administrative
    costs, and benefit accuracy. As Congress continues its full-scale
    review of SNAP, more sophisticated data and tools can lead to more
    informed decision making and a new perspective on the populations that
    the program is intended to help.
                                    Appendix

     Table A.1. Selected State Options and Number of States Using Them Over
                                      Time
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  States using option
                                         -----------------------------------
                                           Oct. 2003   June 2009   Sep. 2013
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Broad-based categorical eligibility            8          27          43
    SSI combined application projects              5          15          18
    Income and resources:
    Vehicle policy for noncategorically
     eligible households:
        SNAP rules                                 9           4           5
        Some additional vehicles or               27          20          19
         vehicle value excluded
        All vehicles excluded                     17          29          29
      Align income and/or resource                24          44          32
       exclusion with TANF or Medicaid
      Simplified determination of cost                        16          19
       of doing business
      Child support expense excluded               6          13          18
       from gross income
    Deductions:
      Simplified deduction determination           4           7           9
       (non-monthly expense averaging)
      Standard medical deduction                               7          14
      Simplified homeless housing cost            25          27          25
      Mandatory standard utility                  30          44          47
       allowance
    Program disqualifications:
      For not meeting requirements of             13          19          24
       other program
      For failure to cooperate with                5           6           7
       child support enforcement
      For drug felony                             41          34          32
        Life-time ban                             21          15          15
        Modified ban                              20          19          17
      For failing to comply with work
       requirements
        Extended beyond statutory                 14          14          12
         minimum
        Entire household disqualified             14          13           9
        Disqualification permanent after           3           1           2
         third occurrence
    Requirements for reporting changes
     in household circumstances:
      Simplified requirements for                 35          50          53
       reporting changes
      Act on all changes known to the             18          34          38
       agency
    Transitional benefits                         10          19          21
    Employment and training pledge                18          11           6
     states
    Online application                                        25          43
    Call centers                                              27          34
      Regional                                                15           9
      Statewide                                               12          25
    Document imaging                                          20          41
    Process improvement waivers:
      Elderly and disabled re-                                            12
       certification interview
      Electronic notices                                                   7
      Postpone expedited service                                           9
       interview
      On-demand interview                                                  9
    Modernization initiatives                                             51
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: USDA State Option Reports and additional correspondence with FNS
      and state agencies.

        The Chairman. Well, I thank our witnesses. The chair would
    remind Members they will be recognized for questioning in order
    of seniority for Members who were here at the start of the
    hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in order of
    arrival. And I appreciate the Members' understanding. I
    recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Muth, in implementing the category eligibility, states
    have the flexibility to set the gross income limits at up to
    200 percent of poverty. Texas has set an income limit of 165
    percent of the Federal poverty level. Can you walk us through
    some of the factors that Texas used to determine that
    particular level?
        Ms. Muth. Absolutely, and I also just want to add that
    Texas does apply the assets limit of the $5,000 as well to this
    population. And in Texas, this was an example of a change that
    came out through a legislative direction. So we did have state
    legislation in the early 2000s that directed the agency to
    implement the policy, and defined the level at which it would
    be implemented.
        The Chairman. So it is a state statute that sets the limit
    at 165 percent, and the asset test at $5,000?
        Ms. Muth. Correct.
        The Chairman. Were you around when the legislature went
    through that exercise?
        Ms. Muth. I actually was not. This was an exercise in
    research that I had to do in preparation for today, to pull up
    the legislative history.
        The Chairman. All right. Ms. Cunnyngham, speaking of that
    asset test, you said there are five states that currently
    impose them, somewhere between $5,000 and $25,000. What is the
    benefit for a state to not test assets when determining SNAP
    eligibility, and could waiving this test hurt the integrity of
    the program? You need your microphone.
        Ms. Cunnyngham. It is an interesting question. That states
    can benefit by waiving the resource test means they don't need
    to collect any information on resources. So there is an
    administrative burden that is lifted there. There is not enough
    data currently to know whether that is the appropriate balance
    between administrative ease and other policy options. We don't
    know the asset holdings of current SNAP participants. With
    better data, we would be able to determine whether that correct
    balance has been struck.
        The Chairman. All right. Ms. Cunnyngham, you said there are
    approximately 1.5 million households that do not meet the
    Federal income requirements, and that they average about $58
    month for the benefit. That is about $87 million a month. Is
    that an accurate statement?
        Ms. Cunnyngham. Correct.
        The Chairman. Okay. All right. I now yield now to Mr.
    Scott, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First
    of all, it is important for us to note that there are 1.7
    million veterans that depend upon SNAP. And this is according
    to the CBPP, which is the Center on Budget and Policy
    Priorities. In every state, thousands of struggling veterans
    use SNAP to put food on the table. Low-income veterans, many
    unemployed, some working in low wage jobs, many disabled. And
    on top of that, many who are returning from military service
    return minus a leg, minus an arm, suffer from mental problems,
    and they face serious challenges in finding work. But 1.7
    million should gravitate this nation to realizing this is more
    than a national crisis. It is a national disgrace. It is very,
    very important that we recognize this as one of the primary
    challenges that we face.
        Stars and Stripes reported that food purchases paid for
    with SNAP at commissaries tripled from 2008 to 2011. Feed Our
    Vets, a nonprofit group that establishes food pantries for
    veterans, has estimated that nearly three million veterans and
    their families don't get enough food to eat each month. This is
    devastating. SNAP is a critical support for our heroes, and it
    is very important that we understand how important SNAP is. I
    also want to call attention to this Committee that the Farm
    Bureau has an excellent program called The Patriot Project. It
    is a mentorship program that connects military veterans,
    beginning farmers and ranchers, with experienced Farm Bureau
    members who are farmers and ranchers. This way, veterans who
    want to be involved in agriculture will be able to learn
    firsthand from an experienced farmer.
        This is a creative approach to that, much like many of us
    here in Congress are doing to reach another group, the African
    Americans, with our 1890s land-grant universities, to increase
    the opportunities for young students to be able to get the kind
    of scholarship and aid to go into agriculture, and into
    business. I say that because we have to do a better job of
    lifting agriculture up to the significant level of importance
    it is, and no statistic emphasizes this more than 1.7 million
    veterans, and their families, depending upon it, and their
    struggle. So I wanted to mention those in my opening.
        I have a minute left, so, Ms. Stacy Dean, you work with the
    Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Much of the information
    that I just mentioned comes from you. In your testimony you
    mentioned that Congress, and the policy of Congress, must not
    do things to undermine SNAP's success. What things might you be
    talking about? Would block grants be one of those?
        Ms. Dean. Yes, Congressman, Our organization would be
    deeply concerned if SNAP were converted to a block grant. If
    its funding were capped, and couldn't respond to need, I
    believe the Ranking Member used words I wouldn't, but he called
    it an unaccountable slush fund. It is a little strong, but that
    is, in fact, what we have seen in TANF. And, of course, it is a
    shrinking pool of funding available for states to meet the
    needs of poor children and families. So that would be of deep
    concern. But also I would imagine, for this Committee, the
    ability to divert benefits away from food to other purposes,
    which we have also heard about as an idea, would be of deep
    concern to us.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
    Goodlatte, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
    holding this hearing, and I just want to say at the outset that
    unless we reform programs like the SNAP Program, and a number
    of other entitlement programs, there is going to be a shrinking
    supply of funds for all of these programs, given the fact that
    we now have $500 billion to $1 trillion annual deficits,
    totaling a $20 trillion national debt.
        But, Ms. Muth, I wanted to ask you a question about Texas.
    You mentioned that your state has shown interest in photo IDs
    on EBT cards. Massachusetts and Maine have implemented this
    option, to certain levels of success. What have been some
    conversations around this option?
        Ms. Muth. During the last legislative session we had a
    proposal, and there is continued interest. During the last
    session it did not pass. I think one of the barriers is that
    there is a cost to implement that. There is a cost to have that
    photo ID on each of the cards. And so Members of our
    legislature are watching very closely the experience in states
    that have implemented it.
        The other issue is that the retailer at the point of sale
    does not limit purchases to the individual that is pictured on
    the card, and so the impact of having the photo is more of a
    deterrent, a potential deterrent effect, which is also
    difficult to measure in that cost-benefit analysis, is that
    something that we want to invest in, in Texas? But there does
    continue to be interest, and we are watching the experience of
    the other states closely.
        Mr. Goodlatte. And you indicate in your testimony that
    Texas has implemented an identity verification process in the
    online application, but, due to Federal restrictions, the
    applicant has the option not to complete it. Can you elaborate
    on what Federal restrictions are in place preventing states
    from seeking more complete online applications?
        Ms. Muth. Absolutely. There is a provision that requires us
    to count an application as filed with the state with only the
    elements of name, address, and signature on that. And the
    thought behind that is that file date is when the benefits
    start for the individual, if an eligibility decision is made.
    But when you are in an online environment: first of all, in
    Texas, we have a lot of people that have the same name, so it
    is very difficult to identify somebody by just name, address,
    and signature. We would like to have that ability.
        The Federal citation is there in the written testimony. I
    think there is a happy medium of you don't necessarily need
    people to complete every element on a lengthy application, but
    we could require additional elements that would help us make
    sure we validate identity. Just like we do for an individual
    who applies for a bank loan, you ask questions based on third
    party data sources to confirm the identity. Because we are not
    seeing these people in our office.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Well, let me ask a question of Ms. Dean
    about this. So many states are now utilizing, in fact, a
    majority of states are utilizing online applications, and over
    the phone initial interviews. Why are the states heading in
    this direction, and what has been the outcome, as states have
    made their way to this model?
        Ms. Dean. There are two reasons. First is the technology is
    there, that it is workable, and can help support states'
    business efforts. I don't think 10 years ago, or 15 years ago,
    the technology would have allowed states to take online
    applications the way that they are. And second, the recession
    really drove states to innovate, to find ways to do more work,
    given that so many more families were at their doors, with
    less. And it is not just online applications, it is document
    imaging. So if all documents are scanned, that means that you
    don't just have to work with an office, or a unique case worker
    who has your paper file. You can call, and wherever the
    available work resource is in the state, your work can be
    diverted to them. So states are getting very innovative.
        I will just say, on identity proofing, a back-end option to
    validate identity in order to reduce verification burdens on
    clients is really interesting, and Texas and Florida testing
    that is terrific.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Well, let me ask Ms. Cunnyngham, I
    understand the administrative efficiencies that can be obtained
    through the use of categorical eligibility. However, nearly
    four million people are eligible for SNAP through these
    policies that do not meet Federal requirements. Are there ways
    in which we can retain these administrative efficiencies while
    more closely aligning these policies with Federal requirements?
    And I will ask Ms. Dean to respond to that, as well as Ms.
    Cunnyngham.
        Ms. Cunnyngham. I will answer, again, that it is difficult
    to know without more data. Right now it is hard to determine
    whether we have struck the correct balance. So I will say that
    people who are actually receiving a benefit are receiving the
    certain benefit criteria set by the Federal Government. So
    people need to have low enough income to receive a benefit.
    However, if you are interested at looking at their resources,
    we need more information to know whether we are striking the
    right balance on that.
        What is interesting is that states have chosen a variety of
    options. Of the states that have chosen broad-based categorical
    eligibility programs, five of them do impose a resource limit.
    Of the states that aren't, seven of those states actually don't
    count the value of all vehicles. So there is a lot of
    information out there. It would be interesting to talk to
    states, find out why they made the choices they did, what
    administrative costs they avoided or incurred that way, and
    what the results were.
        Mr. Goodlatte. My time is expired, but let me just say that
    it is easy to make decisions when the Federal Government has to
    come up with the resources to pay for it. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. Fudge,
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all
    for being here today. Ms. Dean, in your testimony you mentioned
    that most states do choose to operate SNAP's 3 month
    restriction as a time limit where individuals are cut off from
    assistance, despite their willingness to work. You characterize
    this as one of the harshest options within the SNAP program.
    Can you please explain a little bit more?
        Ms. Dean. Sure. First I would say the Federal statute
    obligates states to impose a 3 month time limit on individuals
    between the ages of 18 to 49 without children. They have to be
    working 20 hours a week. Working 18 hours a week, you would
    still be limited to 3 months of benefits. States have an option
    to waive the rule in areas of high unemployment within their
    state. Every state, except Delaware, at some point since the
    rule's origin has waived out part of their state. Because of
    very high unemployment, they don't believe that individuals
    there could legitimately find a job within 3 months.
        Another quick reason why they waive out is the work test
    that Congress--and I should just say not this Committee, it
    arose as a floor amendment in the 1996 welfare law, the work
    test that is set for those individuals is quite extreme. It is
    a 20 hour a week slot, and job search does not count. Most
    states don't have the funds available to create work slots for
    these folks, and they don't, and therefore it is a time limit.
    Often they will waive the rule because they want to create a
    more meaningful work engagement for these folks, to actually
    test their willingness to work, and help build their skills.
        In your own state, unfortunately, I know the City of
    Cleveland qualifies for a waiver due to its high unemployment,
    but surrounding county, Cuyahoga, does not. And as a result,
    even though you are a county administered state, and a lot of
    authorities devolve to counties, made the election for Cuyahoga
    not to waive the City of Cleveland.
        Ms. Fudge. All right. But you would think, then, since you
    know a little bit about my state, 75 percent of all of the
    minorities in the state live in our largest counties, like the
    cities I represent, Cleveland and Akron. However, when the
    governor sought a waiver, he only sought it for rural
    communities. Does that make any sense to you at all?
        Ms. Dean. Well, the way I interpret the state's choice was
    that they only sought waivers for the entirety of counties. I
    know that Lima, Toledo, and Dayton, are also cities that
    qualify, but the governor chose not to waive out those cities
    because he couldn't waive the entire county.
        Ms. Fudge. So he was looking more at land than at people?
        Ms. Dean. I can't speak to his decision.
        Ms. Fudge. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense. We want
    the states to have these authorities, but then the states make
    decisions that are not based upon the highest need.
        Ms. Dean. Right. And, of course, if the county was able to
    waive individuals in the city, versus the balance of the
    county. There could be an administrative reason not to do it,
    but in the case of Cuyahoga, that wasn't the case.
        Ms. Fudge. So that is why I am so afraid about doing
    something like block granting SNAP to states, because they make
    those kinds of decisions. It is interesting to me that we look
    at ABAWDs as the least deserving among the poor. We really do.
    We put them in a category that is almost separate and apart
    from everybody else that ever uses SNAP. Your organization has
    estimated nearly one million people would be cut off SNAP as a
    result of these time restrictions, these limits. Describe the
    unique realities of what we are doing when we put a million
    people off of SNAP.
        Ms. Dean. Right. That is this year, in 2016. At least \1/2\
    million, and potentially up to a million individuals who will
    be cut off the program as a result of this time limit. This is
    an extremely poor group. While on the program, their incomes
    are about 20 percent of the poverty line. They have very
    limited education. Many of them are working, but they are not
    working 20 hours a week. They have no other form of support.
    There is no cash assistance. Half the states don't offer
    medical assistance to them through the Medicaid expansion, and
    they just face extraordinary barriers. One group I would call
    out are ex-offenders. Those with a felony conviction will face
    enormous barriers to entry into the workforce, and so taking
    away their food assistance doesn't make it easier for them to
    find a job, and potentially risks their positive re-entry.
        Ms. Fudge. Well, the other problem is that we have so many
    restrictions on what ex-felons can do. Most ex-felons can't
    even come to most states and get a license to cut hair, or to
    do anything else that they are probably capable of doing.
        Ms. Dean. Yes.
        Ms. Fudge. So we make it more difficult for them to find
    work, based on all the restrictions that we put in law. Thank
    you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Lucas, 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Muth, please
    continue along with the discussion that has been going on here
    with my good colleague from Ohio, my understanding is Texas has
    pledged to offer a qualifying work slot in 2016 to every able-
    bodied person without a disability, of course, subject to the 3
    month time limit, which is, obviously, a very noble and
    impressive goal. I assume this is accomplished through your
    SNAP E&T program. The National Commission on Hunger's report
    discussed the complex rules covering E&T, and recommended
    easing those rules to give states more flexibility to find work
    and work related things. Visit with us for a moment, have you
    found the current rules to be big challenges in accomplishing
    Texas goals, and what is your perspective on more flexibility
    in the program?
        Ms. Muth. I should clarify one thing. In the State of
    Texas, we have a unique arrangement in that we have an entire
    agency, the Texas Workforce Commission, that is focused on all
    of the employment services, and so they actually administer the
    SNAP E&T Program, so I can't offer you my opinion on that
    particular issue, but I would be happy to follow up with my
    sister agency and provide their perspective on that question.
        Mr. Lucas. So your observation, looking across the
    bureaucratic way, how has their success affected the number of
    people in your program?
        Ms. Muth. It is very difficult for me to respond to that
    question. I think they have been extremely successful in
    assisting people in finding employment services across the
    various programs that we interact with them on from both TANF
    and the SNAP Program. But it is just not an area that I have
    any direct knowledge with.
        Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. For a moment, Mr. Chairman, I would
    like to note my colleague's concerns about block granting the
    programs. Sir, being one of the Members on this horseshoe that
    has been around for a little while, this was a major discussion
    in 1996 in the farm bill. And at that time, in that unique
    environment, it almost happened. But the Chairman at the time
    made the decision, as my memory serves me, sitting on this
    Committee way down there, not to proceed. And that is the only
    time that it has really ever almost come to fruition, a very
    long time ago, in a different kind of an environment. But
    clearly, until we get the national economy moving forward, and
    more opportunities exist, the necessity for these programs are
    going to exist.
        And with that said, I realize every state implements its
    standards a little differently. Texas, at 165 percent of the
    poverty level, Oklahoma at 130, we have a different perspective
    there. As the good lady alluded to earlier, different asset
    requirements in Texas than in Oklahoma. That was one of the
    issues in 2012 that the lady and I worked on, was trying to
    standardize a few things, and received great pushback from a
    variety of directions, and was not accomplished. But reform is
    necessary, and making sure the good folks that benefit from the
    programs are not subjected to the program barriers is
    ultimately our goal. And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would
    yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. McGovern, 5
    minutes.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much. And I am sorry the
    gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, left, because he
    suggests that we need to reform this program because of the
    deficit, and all of our budgetary problems. I want to remind
    him that SNAP is one of the most efficiently and effectively
    run programs in our Federal Government, with one of the lowest
    error rates of any program. If we want to deal with the
    deficit, maybe we ought to talk about reforming the Department
    of Defense. Some of their contracting practices, quite frankly,
    leave a lot to be desired.
        But we are talking about food. This is what this is about.
    And the notion that we are going to impose more requirements,
    more hoops for people to jump through in order to somehow lower
    the number of people who can take advantage of the SNAP
    Program, to me, is cruel. The gentlelady, Ms. Fudge, talked
    about the ABAWD situation. We are talking about veterans in
    that category too, people who fought for our country. And
    because they are single adults, and they can't get enrolled in
    a work training program, and they can't find a job, we are
    going to throw them off a food benefit. I can't think of
    anything more cruel, and more ungrateful than that.
        And so when we talk about reforming the program, what we
    ought to be thinking about is how do we make sure that people
    in this country who are needy have access to this benefit? And
    by the way, the gentleman from Virginia mentioned the photo ID
    program. I am from Massachusetts. Believe me, it is expensive,
    and there are lots of problems, and it has caused lots of
    confusion. So if anybody is thinking of going down that road, I
    am happy to talk to you about some of the problems.
        This is our 12th hearing on SNAP since the start of last
    year, and we have heard the word flexibility thrown around.
    That is the favorite word around here, and I worry about what
    that really means. It means one thing to me, it means something
    else to some of my other colleagues. I worry that it is code
    for block grants. I think that would be a disaster. I think it
    would be catastrophic. Block granting, or cap funding, or merge
    funding, whatever you want to call it, would be a mistake. It
    would undermine one of the fundamental strengths of the
    program, which is that it can respond quickly and effectively
    in times of great disaster or economic downturn.
        If you want to get people off of SNAP, then we ought to get
    this economy going. We ought to make sure that we are investing
    in job training, that we are investing in jobs. Maybe we ought
    to be talking about raising the minimum wage to a livable wage,
    because the majority of people on SNAP who are able to work,
    work. I mean, some of them are working more than one job, and
    they are earning so little that they are still in poverty, and
    they still have to rely on this benefit. What the hell else do
    we want them to do? Now, having said all of that, I should also
    remind people that the benefit itself is woefully inadequate,
    $1.40 per person, per meal, per day. Sometimes, the way we will
    hear it talked about here, you would think that it is the most
    overly generous benefit that you could possibly imagine.
        Now, I understand that states already have a number of
    options available to them that they can use to make sure that
    everyone who is eligible for SNAP is enrolled, but the problem
    is that many of the states aren't even aware of these options,
    and don't take advantage of them. So there is already
    flexibility within SNAP to help states enroll eligible families
    to feed the hungry. Ms. Dean, in your testimony you elaborated
    on the options and flexibility that already exist. Maybe you
    could identify one or two of the most important, but
    underutilized options?
        Ms. Dean. Sure, thank you, Congressman. I think a recent
    option that has been made available that states aren't
    necessarily aware of, because it crosses over SNAP to Medicaid,
    is that in Medicaid, when a family is up for renewal, the state
    is actually supposed to look at available data that it has,
    before asking the family, in order to determine whether the
    family stays eligible. They actually have the ability to go
    into SNAP records and say, based on that robust assessment of
    eligibility, and all the data that we have on who this family
    is, and where they live, and what they are earning, we can use
    that in order to, as Ms. Muth said, use third party information
    to just automatically renew their Medicaid.
        I want to make sure folks understand, there is a high
    degree of rigor there. But importing that information over
    ensures continuous coverage in health insurance. And given the
    extraordinary overlap between SNAP and Medicaid, those are the
    two programs with the most overlap, finding ways to do more
    there is really important.
        But I think that our issue there is that FNS, as part of
    USDA, and CMS, as part of HHS, are not always cognizant of each
    other's programs, and they don't always know how to engage
    states. Actually, Ms. Muth and I were having coffee this
    morning, and talking about that very problem, that there is a
    lot of experimentation in service delivery and Medicaid that
    FNS isn't always aware of, and might be more cautious than
    their sister agency.
        I think another area is senior service. There is actually
    an obligation on the Social Security Administration to help
    low-income seniors apply for SNAP at Social Security, and my
    assessment is that they are not doing as much as they could to
    help poor seniors apply at SSA, and therefore not have to go
    down to the local welfare office. And I would love if the
    Committee would consider exploring that issue, and how to
    improve service to seniors.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Yoho, 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you all
    being here, and I want to thank everybody for taking the time
    to come here today and provide your testimonies. What I would
    like to focus on is the issue of how states can further crack
    down on the SNAP fraud and abuse, and I will talk about this
    and clarify this. In my home State of Florida, concerns have
    consistently been voiced by leaders at the Department of
    Children and Families that while there is a significant
    qualitative data on fraud, it is virtually impossible to
    quantify.
        And I just want to echo what Chairman Goodlatte's comments
    in regards to our ensuing financial crisis that somehow we seem
    to ignore up here. And knowing that about 80 percent of the
    2014 Farm Bill is dedicated to the nutritional programs, what I
    would like to hear from you is the best ways we need to reform
    not just the nutritional program, and we are looking at all
    programs, and not just in ag, but across the board, because
    this is a situation, as he pointed out, we are not going to
    have a choice. It will not be an option in 4 or 5 years if we
    don't address it now.
        And in the State of Florida we talked with our people that
    administer this program, and they put in the work requirement,
    as you know, 1st of January. From January to the end of
    February, the people that were on SNAP that had work
    requirements instituted at the beginning of the year, less than
    eight percent have re-signed up for the SNAP programs. And then
    we look at what happened in Maine, and 85 percent of their
    enrollment went down. And we know what happened in 1996, when
    Bill Clinton reformed the welfare program. So it was the
    largest drop in our history, and the largest reform, and it was
    because of the work requirements.
        And I guess my question is, Ms. Muth, can you speak of the
    issues--that is not the question I have for you. Have you heard
    of any state, or in your state, have there been any detrimental
    effects from work requirements for SNAP on the individual or a
    family?
        Ms. Muth. So, again, In our agency we don't administer the
    work requirement piece, but from the eligibility side, I am not
    aware of any issues. And, if I may, can I speak a moment to
    your issue of fraud?
        Mr. Yoho. Please.
        Ms. Muth. Because I do believe that states, just like in
    the private-sector, there is a wealth of information that is
    available. If your credit card is compromised, your credit card
    company knows immediately that there is suspicious----
        Mr. Yoho. Boy, they sure do.
        Ms. Muth.--purchasing activity, before you do in most
    cases. And really, we have an opportunity, and states are doing
    more and more of this, to apply those same technological
    skills, and use that same technology, like, on EBT purchases.
    So when you see patterns that are potential fraud, that it will
    alert the state that we need to investigate. Not just at the
    individual level, but also at the retailer level. And so
    technology opens up so many tools in preventing and detecting
    fraud that we are beginning to utilize more and more.
        Mr. Yoho. Let me ask you that, since you brought that up,
    who would be best to do that? Would that be state, or is that
    something that should be farmed out to a credit card company,
    or somebody that can do that, and they do it efficiently, and
    they do it right now, real time?
        Ms. Muth. In the State of Texas we recently went through a
    new procurement for our EBT system, and that is one of the
    tools that we are getting. And it is a financial company that
    is going to be our EBT vendor. So it is the same technology
    that they are applying. Obviously the patterns are different,
    the algorithms are different, but it is the same technology, so
    they come with that.
        Mr. Yoho. Right.
        I appreciate your input. Ms. Dean, let me ask you, since
    you are on a national scene, let me ask you that same question.
    Have you heard of any body that has been required to have the
    work requirements? And we have seen the results in Florida.
    Granted, it has only been 2 months, and I am sure more people
    will sign up, but with, like, the State of Maine, where you saw
    an 85 percent reduction, or going back to 1996 under Bill
    Clinton, when he enacted the welfare reform, are there any
    reports that show the detrimental effect on an individual, or a
    family, and if so, can you state those, and give me maybe
    written testimony on that?
        Ms. Dean. Sure.
        Mr. Yoho. Or direct me in the right direction?
        Ms. Dean. Absolutely. I think the concept of a work
    requirement, I share the Congressman's belief and the Center
    has always believed that work requirements are very reasonable.
    The question is whether what we are asking of the individual is
    something that they can do. When they don't comply, is it
    because they failed to comply, or is it because they refused to
    comply? And I think that that is where we often see an
    extraordinary mismatch, we ask someone to do something they are
    simply not capable of doing, and then they face the penalty
    because we made a mistake.
        Mr. Yoho. Okay. I am out of time, and I need to yield back,
    but I also asked them about the work requirement. If you are
    looking for a job, they said that does qualify for the work
    requirement, in our state.
        Ms. Dean. I can follow up with you. It does in January. It
    won't in April.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
    Aguilar, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Dean, I
    appreciate the data that you shared with us today about the
    benefits of the program. Over here, sorry. Unfortunately, some
    like to portray the SNAP program as a Federal benefit that
    incentivizes low-income individuals to support themselves
    through Federal funds rather than seeking employment, and the
    data shows that difference. However, I have always believed
    that the SNAP program is a Federal benefit that serves as a
    bridge to help families out of poverty.
        Your research demonstrates some of the incredible outcomes
    in the program, and in your written testimony you cite evidence
    that demonstrates caseloads for SNAP are declining as the
    economy improves. Additionally, the data shows that the SNAP
    program helped keep millions out of poverty, including 4.9
    million children in 2012. So, looking forward, how do you
    foresee the SNAP Program evolving as economic times continue to
    improve, and what role will SNAP play in building a more
    financially stable future for low-income families? I am
    interested especially on the economic side, which your data
    shows every $1 of increased SNAP benefits results in $1.70 in
    economic activity.
        Ms. Dean. Sure, thank you. Well, as the economy improves,
    and most importantly as poverty declines, we have seen elevated
    poverty, despite an improving unemployment rate. The number of
    people who quality for SNAP will go down, and as a result we
    will see a decrease. SNAP caseloads have been declining, albeit
    slowly, for the last 2 years, but preliminary data from the
    last few months suggest actually it will be coming down at a
    more rapid clip. And I suspect that that relates to an improved
    economy.
        So if we have fewer eligible, fewer people need the
    program. However, we are serving more eligible people in the
    program. The program is much more successful at reaching needy
    people, particularly low-income seniors and working families.
    Those are the groups that are participating at higher rates. I
    don't think we want to do anything to compromise those gains,
    so if we are now serving 80, 85 percent of eligible people,
    hopefully we can continue to do better in reaching under-served
    groups. So that will still be there.
        And what we will see, again, if the economy truly does
    improve, and heats up in a way that we would all like, the
    program will be going to individuals and communities, as it
    always does, but those that most need it. And it will remain a
    powerful support for those families and communities. But
    hopefully there will simply be fewer folks who need it, because
    the economy improves.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Ms. Muth, talking about technology,
    you have talked about that in response to a few of the
    questions earlier. I am interested to learn about the mobile
    app that you touched on, and that your testimony mentions, the
    self-service side. With 1.2 million documents uploaded in 2014,
    I am curious about the rollout process not only for the users,
    but on the staff side, and specifically, Ms. Dean talked about
    under-served communities, including low-income seniors. How
    have seniors responded to the online application piece? And if
    we have time left, I will ask you about the appeals process,
    and how that works within the interface. Go ahead.
        Ms. Muth. Okay. So I will start with the mobile app.
    Obviously, any of the technology tools that we offer are
    optional, so you don't have to provide information to us
    through a mobile app. But we did research to look at why are
    people coming into our office, and, again, we have to be
    efficient. We are running a business. So what are those non-
    value added tasks, both for us, and for the individuals that we
    serve, that are occurring? And \1/3\ of the people that came
    into our office were coming in just to drop off documentation,
    which then, as Ms. Dean mentioned, we image that so that
    information is available, and we can distribute workload across
    the state.
        Well, there is a cost to imaging that document, so we
    thought, well, if you are going to deposit a check with your
    bank, I no longer have to go to the bank. I can use a mobile
    app, I can take a picture, and that image is right there for
    the bank to process. And we applied that same concept to our
    mobile app, and it is a tool that is available.
        So the vast majority of people are still not utilizing the
    mobile app, but for those that do, it can save them a trip to
    the office, and it is efficient for the state because we don't
    have to pay our vendor to produce that image, and we don't have
    to touch the document. It is just automatically associated with
    their case. A worker gets notified, we have been provided this
    documentation, and they can complete that eligibility
    determination.
        So we built a business case around what things would be a
    value add both for the state and for the client in offering the
    product.
        Mr. Aguilar. And as the use for devices goes up, then
    hopefully that piece as well, helping you reach your timeliness
    of responses as well. That was an interesting part of your
    testimony. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Muth. Absolutely.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Thanks,
    Pete. Mr. Gibbs, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Muth, I want to
    talk to you about something, in your testimony you talk about
    SNAP balances, and trying to expunge those balances. The reason
    I am so interested in this, in Ohio, one of my local media TV
    stations did a little expose, and they found out we had some
    people on SNAP balances, some as high as $22,000-$23,000,
    trying to figure out how to address that.
        So I see in your testimony that your agency requested, and
    was denied, a waiver to expunge the SNAP benefits on active
    accounts that have been available for at least 12 months. So do
    we need to pass some Federal legislation, what is Texas trying
    to do to address this balance issue, and what are your limits
    and limitations? What do you need, exactly?
        Ms. Muth. I believe it is a change in regulation that is
    required, and we must have had the same reporter move from
    Texas to your state, because we had a similar number of
    exposes, which attracted a lot of interest. I think the
    limitation right now is if an account is not an active account,
    you can expunge those benefits, but active accounts we can't.
        Mr. Gibbs. Okay. Thanks for the clarification, inactive,
    what is the definition of----
        Ms. Muth. If you use that account even once in that 12
    month period, that is considered an active account. So that is
    sort of the limitation that we have.
        Mr. Gibbs. So currently if somebody hasn't used their
    account in a 12 month period, you can expunge those----
        Ms. Muth. That is correct.
        Mr. Gibbs. Okay.
        Ms. Dean. Can I just jump in on----
        Mr. Gibbs. Okay.
        Ms. Dean. The 2008 law is very clear that states can take
    the account offline after 6, and then they must expunge after
    12, but it is the activity that is the issue.
        Ms. Muth. Yes.
        Mr. Gibbs. Okay.
        Ms. Dean. I will say that, to the extent that there is a
    problem, and the balances that you describe are clearly an
    issue, but where there are smaller amounts, states often find
    that it is senior and disabled households who actually don't
    know how to access their account. Maybe they thought they were
    supposed to get a second card in the mail. So what we would
    like to see is to make sure states are engaging with the
    household on why aren't you using it, then you could revisit
    the expungement rule.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
        It would be reasonable to have some dollar amount, $5,000,
    I don't know what that is, I am just throwing it out. And if it
    has been more than 6 months, that would be reasonable to say
    that states could freeze those accounts, and require those
    people to contact them and find out what is going on.
        Ms. Dean. Yes, and USDA is encouraging that, but it is not
    obligated under the statute.
        Mr. Gibbs. Okay.
        Ms. Muth. And that is freezing an inactive. I think that it
    is also that question of what the activity levels are, and how
    old those benefits are. So I certainly think there is
    opportunity to tweak how that is currently done today.
        Mr. Gibbs. Well, another question, the obvious question,
    since you had this issue in Texas, when I am sure Texas and
    Ohio are not unique to the country on this issue. It must be
    nationwide. How in the world does anybody get those kind of
    balances?
        Ms. Muth. And I think that is the big question that erodes
    the integrity of--that is what our public asked. If you need
    SNAP benefits, obviously there is not trafficking going on in
    that case, because they are accumulating very large benefits.
    But if you meet the eligibility requirements, why wouldn't you
    need to be utilizing those benefits. I think there are some
    situations, as Ms. Dean mentioned, where people might not be
    fully aware of the amount, but there certainly are a small
    number of cases where you see extremely large benefits that
    aren't explained by that explanation.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Well, you raised the question about
    eligibility criteria, parameters. Would you have a suggestion
    or a recommendation, maybe, that the--we need to dig in deeper
    to the eligibility, and I want to make sure the people that
    need the help are getting it. But, when you see balances like
    that--and it is not, in the scheme of things, it is a handful
    of people, but it is pretty good sized dollars in the
    aggregate.
        Ms. Muth. Right.
        Certainly, we want to look at those cases for what is going
    on in that case, it is a red flag, or an alert for potential
    fraud. I think the issue is less on the front end, and more on
    what is happening in that individual case, because there are a
    handful of those that there is really no logical reason for why
    you should have accumulated such large balances.
        Mr. Gibbs. Now, would you agree with me that the states,
    since this program is funded total--100 percent by the Federal
    Government, and then states kind of, at least in Ohio,
    administer through the counties, the states don't really have
    an incentive to really be involved anyway. Is that typical in
    Texas too?
        Ms. Muth. We have some skin in the game, with the 50
    percent of the administrative cost, and, certainly, in our
    state our philosophy around the programs is that we believe
    that it is taxpayer dollars, and whatever the source, that we
    want to maintain the integrity of the program.
        Mr. Gibbs. Well, I appreciate your testimony bringing this
    to light, because we need to try to figure this out so people
    that need the help get it. I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. Adams,
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much
    each of you for your testimony. As many of you are aware,
    Congresswoman DeLauro and I are circulating a letter stating
    Member opposition to SNAP being converted to a block grant
    program as part of any budget resolution. So I would encourage
    other Members to join the 60+ Members who are already on the
    letter, if they haven't done so.
        Ms. Dean, the State of North Carolina has decided to stop
    all waivers for SNAP work requirements for ABAWDs by July of
    this year. And while many states no longer have blanket waivers
    due to lower overall unemployment, there are still areas of the
    12th District, that I represent, where jobs are just not
    available. What flexibility is North Carolina giving up by not
    requesting waivers for areas experiencing high unemployment?
        Ms. Dean. Well, they are certainly giving up the
    flexibility to provide food assistance to very poor, unemployed
    individuals. And they are limiting the flexibility of local
    food banks by increasing the number of folks who need to turn
    to them, possibly having to ration food across more folks.
        But, most fundamentally, what they are taking away from
    themselves is the ability to engage these folks in meaningful
    work programs, job training, and job search. Again, the work
    rule under the time limit, which is very different than what
    Mr. Yoho was talking about, in terms of employment and
    training, is a 20 hour a week engagement with no, or extremely
    limited job search. That is expensive for states to pull off,
    and they could much more meaningfully engage these individuals
    and help them with employment if they weren't facing the
    pressure of the time limit.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you. In a written report by your
    organization, it mentions that the SNAP program already has a
    strong work incentive. For every additional dollar a SNAP
    recipient earns, their 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. So how can we model the
    already strong work incentive for the SNAP Program for other
    income support programs?
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, that is a great question. Medicaid
    shares SNAP's work incentive, in the sense of if you go to
    work, earn more, your benefits are not put immediately at risk,
    in terms of health coverage, and that is very powerful. But
    other programs that are capped, or where the funding is only
    available to serve one in four or one in six eligible people,
    as someone gets a job, often very quickly the benefits could be
    taken away. Let us say someone loses a job. If you are
    receiving child care assistance when you have had employment,
    and then you lose the job, child care could be cut off. But, of
    course, that undermines your ability to go look for work and
    get another job.
        Taking a more holistic view of wanting to support and
    incent work, and ensuring that we cover working families, the
    fundamental way to do that is by financing the programs, not
    capping them.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you. Ms. Dean, we have discussed in
    previous hearings that many states do not offer a standard
    medical expense deduction for seniors and the disabled to
    document their true costs of living when they apply or re-
    certify for SNAP benefits. In states that do offer a standard
    medical deduction, have you seen more seniors claiming the
    deduction in order to increase their monthly SNAP benefits?
        Ms. Dean. Yes, and so this is a part of the program where
    seniors, or people with disabilities, can deduct their medical
    expenses, because the cost of those expenses can obviously
    impede their ability to purchase food. So not all households,
    but just seniors and people with disabilities can deduct those
    expenses.
        It is actually a very complex area of the law, and when we
    look at the number of seniors on the program, and who are
    claiming medical expenses, it is extremely low, much lower than
    you would expect. And it is just very hard. The statute is
    actually pretty complicated about what it takes to claim those
    expenses. So states have come up with a way to simplify it and
    make it easier to demonstrate that they have out of pocket
    medical expenses, and the take-up there is great. That having
    been said, seniors need detailed, robust engagement. They need
    help through the process, and so what works best with them is
    actually supporting them through the application effort.
        Ms. Adams. Okay. You have documented that SNAP benefits
    have consistently not kept pace with the rising cost of food.
    So how would switching to the low cost food plan permit those
    recipients to more adequately put food on the table through the
    end of the month?
        Ms. Dean. The Thrifty Food Plan, the basis of the SNAP
    benefit assumes a very meager diet, and heroic assumptions
    about how much time families have to cook, shop, and really
    extreme assumptions about what they are buying, relative to the
    rest of America. A more realistic food plan, including a Low
    Cost Food Plan, would put more nutritious, healthy diets,
    within reach of families on this program.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you. I am out of time. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
    Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Nutrition, Mrs. Walorski.
        Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And hello to you,
    the two of you that have been here before us. Good to see you
    again. As you know, I chair the Committee's Nutrition
    Subcommittee, which has been central to the review process of
    past, present, and future of SNAP, so I want to thank you for
    being here, and for returning for your second debut as well, I
    appreciate your expertise.
        One thing that has stood out to me as we have been talking
    together, and taking this comprehensive look at SNAP, is that
    we are all in this together. Everybody is a shareholder.
    Federal Government, state government, not-for-profits, private-
    sector, researchers, recipients, everybody has a role to play
    in this issue of lifting Americans out of poverty and onto the
    economic ladder. So no one has a monopoly on good ideas. In
    fact, state governments, not-for-profits, and the private-
    sector are crucial incubators, and we have heard time and time
    again, crucial incubators of innovative ways to fight hunger
    and poverty. And flexibility does matter, it is important,
    because it allows them to tailor programs to respond to the
    needs of their individual states.
        So my question, Ms. Muth, is to you. Our review of SNAP has
    shown the great value of partnering with all of these entities,
    the state governments, the private-sector, the researchers, and
    all the shareholders. And can you just talk a little bit about
    the partnerships, and the impact they have had when you are
    administrating Federal programs locally? And then to what
    extent have you utilized these partnerships at the state level
    to maximize resources? And the positive and negatives of both.
        Ms. Muth. Okay, absolutely. Well, I will talk about the
    private-sector, in the traditional sense, first. We have a
    number of contracts that support our eligibility process. And
    as I was talking about, EBT being an area that we have vendor
    support, and you are able to bring in the expertise of
    financial industry, that is not something that the state agency
    has. And so I think that those contractual relationships that
    we have for entities that support ours and the program bring
    new perspectives, and it is part of the whole program
    administration that we have in Texas.
        But we also have a large number of partnerships with
    entities at the local level. In Texas we have about 1,500
    community partners, and these are non-financial agreements that
    we have with entities who are already providing assistance to
    individuals. And they are providing assistance with things like
    the job search, or helping address underlying mental health
    issues, or they are providing case management services, and so
    providing them access to SNAP is one of the tools in their case
    management toolbox. So we partner with those 1,500
    organizations.
        For those individuals, they used to bring us paper
    applications. Today they are community partner sites, and they
    make the online application, the mobile app functionality,
    available to individuals across the state.
        Mrs. Walorski. And when you are partnering you are sending,
    then, all those resources down to the front line, and it sounds
    like you are doing what we have heard about, and what we have
    been talking about, this holistic approach. So when somebody
    does fall through the so-called safety net, then basically your
    partnerships, if I understand this correctly, are basically
    there to make sure there is an underlying net that makes this
    program then run more efficiently. Prior to the partnerships,
    do you have data that you can look at and say, wow, since we
    have been partnering with all these agencies, look how much
    more efficiently we are delivering this, or look how much
    better holistically we are taking care of families? Is that
    true?
        Ms. Muth. I don't have data to indicate that. I think those
    partnerships existed. It wasn't really a partnership. There was
    a relationship.
        Mrs. Walorski. Yes.
        Ms. Muth. And it became really clear to us in Texas, when
    we had significant delays in processing eligibility, because
    food banks came to us and said, while it is taking you this
    long, we can't keep food on the shelves because people are
    coming more to us. So there is a natural relationship there
    that we just sort of formalized in those partnership
    agreements.
        Mrs. Walorski. Okay. I have one quick question. You talked
    about the most common SNAP household recipient is female,
    between 18 and 49, with kids under 12 years of age, has some
    form of income, receives a monthly benefit of $274. Can you
    recommend to this Committee what you think would best assist
    the majority of this population? What is the best thing we
    could possibly do, if we could make a move to assist that
    woman?
        Ms. Muth. I think part of it is just changing our
    practices, and not expecting everybody to be able to arrange
    for child care, and transportation, and time off of work to
    come in to those eligibility offices, and having the
    convenience of technology so that they can provide information
    to us, contact us, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week through the
    online self-service.
        Mrs. Walorski. Okay. I appreciate it. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Costa, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
    welcome the witnesses, and thank you for being here. Members of
    the Committee, I am sure, as you are aware this is the 12th
    hearing that we have held on the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP, in the 114th
    Congress. Each hearing has had a distinguished panel, and what
    I am trying to determine is what the objective is? Why we have
    we had a preponderance of hearings on the SNAP program. And I
    must admit that I am increasingly concerned about the potential
    intentions, as it relates to the future farm bill. I am
    concerned that there is going to be a policy recommendation to
    leadership that in the next farm bill we dramatically cut SNAP,
    and there should be adjustments as it relates toward it, but I
    don't think we ought to be throwing the baby out with the bath
    water, no pun intended.
        My district is one of the richest agricultural districts in
    the country, but it is also, with that significant wealth, has
    a lot of poverty. A cut would be devastating, and directly
    equate to taking food out of the mouths of children and
    families in my district. The irony is that a lot of these folks
    are some of the hardest working people you ever met in your
    life, who are working to produce the food that goes on
    America's dinner table. And many of them are out of work today
    as a result of the drought conditions and the regulatory
    programs that have compounded the drought conditions.
        California's San Joaquin Valley, which I have the pleasure
    of representing, has an unemployment level that is nearly twice
    that of the national average according to the Bureau of
    Statistics. And as it stands today, I sadly must tell the
    Members of this Committee and the witnesses that there are
    50,000+ households receiving SNAP benefits in my district. The
    statewide snapshot of SNAP in California indicates that there
    are 278,000 households that are receiving food stamps in
    California, and 50,000 of them are in my district, almost 20
    percent. If you want to understand the snapshot of those
    households, 79 percent have a child that is under 18. And 15
    percent of those households have one or more persons that are
    60 years or older. This is dramatically impacting the Valley,
    obviously, because of a combination of other factors, as I
    stated earlier. Fields are being left unplanted as a result of
    the drought, and jobs are at a premium. Now is not the time to
    be considering taking food away from families in the San
    Joaquin Valley, or throughout the nation.
        Are we satisfied with the status quo? Absolutely not. Are
    there alternatives to dealing with this? Yes, and let me speak
    of one. My friend Pete Weber, who has taken the leadership with
    local governmental agencies has formed the Fresno Bridge
    Academy in my district, and it is one of several programs
    around the country that has taken advantage of the 2014 Farm
    Bill Employment and Training Pilot Program that I urged very
    hard to make a part of that farm bill to reduce dependency. One
    of the last graduating classes at the Bridge Academy saw 77
    percent participating SNAP clients come from unemployed to
    becoming employed; 18 months later, 83 percent of the clients
    had obtained employment or job advancement, and 32 percent had
    achieved self-reliance. I believe states' best options are to
    develop and fund innovative programs like the Fresno Bridge
    Academy, designed specifically to truly help people move to
    independence. That said, my question is, with all due respect,
    what are we doing? What are the efforts intended to be with
    this Committee in the outcome of these hearings?
        So finally, Ms. Stacy Dean, I would like to ask, what can
    states do to develop additional programs like the Fresno Bridge
    Academy, because clearly we want to get people off assistance.
    We want to get people independent and self-reliant, and that
    ought to be the goal and the intention, regardless of how many
    hearings we have.
        Ms. Dean. Well, I don't mean to joke too much, but actually
    cloning the Fresno Bridge Academy would be terrific, because
    not every state has such a terrific local partner that runs
    such a high quality program. So finding ways to replicate is
    important. USDA actually just announced, in the last day or 2,
    that they are providing more robust technical assistance for
    ten new states to bring up their employment and training
    programs. I say bring up, employment and training may be
    significant, but a lot of it is focused on job search and
    workfare, and not how do----
        Mr. Costa. Actually getting people into the jobs?
        Ms. Dean. Right, and giving them the support and
    intervention that they need to move up into the workforce. So
    cloning first, but then more learning.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much. My time has expired, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Allen,
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, to our
    distinguished panel, for being here, and talking about this
    important program. Obviously, we had tremendous growth in this
    program, and now I see that we are making progress, as far as
    reducing the number of folks on this program. In fact, I was
    with a group yesterday that are involved in a food pantry
    program, and one of the concerns that I had in, and this is in
    south Georgia, that they serve about 3,000 children, but there
    are another 56,000 children that they think that might not be
    served. And then the other thing that I thought was important
    was that of those 3,000 children served, all of them have so
    far gotten a high school education through the food pantry
    program.
        Are there similar programs, and I will just throw this out
    to the panel, do you see the potential, as far as changing the
    cycle through education, and then, obviously, moving these
    folks onto the workforce, and then getting them off of this
    assistance?
        Ms. Muth. I think absolutely that there are a lot of
    programs around the country, and much of that occurs at the
    local level, where organizations are having that direct contact
    with the families, and provide more. We talked a little bit
    about how they have the ability to provide a little more of the
    holistic case management to identify the underlying needs of
    the family, and SNAP being a tool in the toolbox to assist them
    on that path to self-sufficiency.
        Mr. Allen. Are there any statistics out there that you
    have, as far as the SNAP Program, and then the ability, well,
    we know children, and your testimony here has provided that
    children do better in school and socially if they are not
    hungry. So what are your trends showing, as far as the impact
    that you are having on children, and their ability to get a
    good education, and then to get a good job?
        Ms. Dean. If I may take that one?
        Mr. Allen. Yes.
        Ms. Dean. In my testimony I summarized the results of a
    recent study that was published that took a look at SNAP when
    it was being rolled out in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That
    was the only time in history where we could compare children
    who, as young children, or while their mothers were pregnant
    with them, received SNAP versus did not.
        And when you looked at the long-term outcomes for those
    individuals who were able to participate in then food stamps,
    it is really astonishing. High school completion rate was 18
    percent higher amongst children who, when they were very young,
    were able to participate in SNAP. That is an extraordinary
    outcome for a basic food benefit for young kids. And,
    similarly, their health outcomes were also impressively much
    better off than those who did not. So I do think it is very
    important to think of this as a long-term investment in
    education.
        Mr. Allen. Yes. As far as your statistics go, obviously the
    longer you are on these programs, the more dependent you are.
    And what are we doing, obviously, we are seeing progress with
    our children, and doing the right thing, as far as making sure
    that they are fed, that they have the ability to get their work
    done, and then, like you said, move out of this cycle. But do
    you see any potential as far as older folks, in what we are
    able to do to move them off these programs?
        Ms. Dean. Well, the individuals who participate in SNAP, it
    is a very dynamic group. The majority of folks experience a
    temporary downturn in their personal circumstances, they use
    the program, and they move on.
        Mr. Allen. Yes.
        Ms. Dean. They get that job, and their family situation
    improves, their child is no longer sick, whatever the situation
    is.
        Mr. Allen. Yes.
        Ms. Dean. That is a very dynamic group. There is also a
    group that is simply earning wages that are very low, or a
    senior who has a Social Security benefit that we cannot expect
    to increase. The 70 year old is not going to earn more funding.
        Mr. Allen. I am just----
        Ms. Dean. You have to think about them differently.
        Mr. Allen.--just about out of time, but obviously the
    economy has not been robust for some time now. In fact, it is
    the longest period of stagnation in some time. But obviously
    you see a big difference when we have a growing economy, and
    the wages are growing, and people are able to move up into
    higher wages, and then eventually become independent?
        Ms. Dean. Absolutely.
        Mr. Allen. Okay. All right.
        Ms. Dean. Absolutely.
        Mr. Allen. So we have just have to get the economy growing?
        Ms. Dean. Just that.
        Mr. Allen. Okay.
        Ms. Dean. Right.
        Mr. Allen. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mrs.
    Kirkpatrick, 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Arizona's one of the six states that has
    a full ban on non-compliance with drug testing, and I just
    would like your thoughts about what that does to families in
    Arizona. I don't know who wants to answer that. Whoever wants
    to answer.
        Ms. Dean. You are talking about drug testing and the cash
    assistance?
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. That is right. There are six states that
    have a full ban.
        Ms. Dean. Right.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Arizona's one of them.
        Ms. Dean. First of all, there is a question to the state in
    terms of the cost of the drug testing, given the very low
    positive results that are found. And several studies have found
    that it is an extremely expensive policy for what is found. But
    the real question is what is the purpose of the drug testing?
    Is it withdrawing cash assistance or fundamental support from
    extremely poor families, because Arizona's cash assistance
    rules are pretty strict. Withdrawing funding from that family
    and basic support, are those children better off, is the
    individual with a substance abuse or addiction problem getting
    the help that they need? And that is the measure of success,
    and not something that we are necessarily seeing in the states
    that have applied the test.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. And hunger is a real problem in Arizona.
    We have a higher incident rate of hunger among children. On the
    Navajo Nation, over 76 percent of the people suffer from food
    insecurity. So I am really pleased to see that Arizona has been
    selected to receive the specialized technical assistance to
    improve their SNAP E&T Program. And my question is, for Ms.
    Dean, can you explain how this program will help Arizonans get
    SNAP and back to work?
        Ms. Dean. I believe I just mentioned this a second ago.
    There is an organization in Washington: Seattle, Washington,
    called the Seattle Jobs Initiative that has a pretty amazing
    proven track record in opening up workforce training programs
    to very poor individuals and families. Traditionally, a lot of
    the workforce and job training programs run by Labor
    Departments can be closed off to some of the poorest families,
    and the ones most in need of that basic training in order to
    move up the economic ladder.
        But, the Seattle Jobs Initiative seems to have cracked that
    nut, and USDA has contracted with them to offer technical
    assistance to states outside of Washington who are interested
    in finding a way to design programs that work for the SNAP
    population that they most want to help. So appropriate to local
    conditions, appropriate to the individuals that they are
    selecting, because we think about moms with enormous barriers
    to work quite differently than someone with a deep job history.
    You would just go about helping them differently. And, of
    course, responsive to local conditions. Are there jobs there?
    Are they talking to employers about the skills that are needed?
    This program has been terrific, and we are thrilled USDA is
    offering their help to ten more states, and I am glad Arizona
    is one of them.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, and it really is about jobs.
    It is all about jobs.
        Ms. Dean. Yes.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I was happy to hear the idea about using
    technology to allow them to get online to make their
    applications and supplement their information. Here is the
    problem I have. I have a huge rural district in Arizona, much
    of which does not have broadband coverage. And so is there
    anything that you are aware of what is being done to address
    that?
        Ms. Muth. We certainly have similar issues in Texas. And
    while I don't have the answer for that, over time that is
    becoming less and less of an issue. But while there are not
    immediate answers to that, it is still an option, it is not the
    requirement. But I think that for most people it is an option
    that most people would like to take. And so we have definitely
    seen a big difference over the past 10 years in Texas, and I
    look forward to that continuing to improve in rural areas.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. We are seeing some progress, but still a
    lot of work to be done. It is a top priority of mine for many
    reasons. So thank you very much for your testimony today. I
    yield back.
        Ms. Muth. Yes.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Newhouse, 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Ms. Muth, Ms.
    Dean, Ms. Cunnyngham, thank you very much for being here and
    discussing this important topic of finding different options
    available to states for implementing SNAP.
        I have a question for each one of you, so that 5 minutes
    goes by really quickly. I just wanted to, first of all, and
    this is for Ms. Cunnyngham, but maybe Ms. Dean, since you
    brought up Seattle. I am from the State of Washington. As you
    know, we have a very robust SNAP employment and training
    program. It is known as the Basic Food Employment and Training,
    or BFET. It is a collaborative public-private partnership that
    provides a range of skills to SNAP beneficiaries, things like
    advanced employment, interview help, education skills, even
    down to what is the proper workplace attire for people that are
    looking for work, and other things.
        It has been very successful. From April 2011 to December
    2014 it has more than a 65 percent success rate of helping
    people find work within 24 months, at fairly good wages,
    actually, comparatively. So whoever could contribute to this,
    could you discuss the range of E&T options that are available
    to states, ranging from fully funded Federal programs to the
    50/50 program match funds? And also, do many states take
    advantage of that 50/50 match program? And also, not to tout
    our own program, but can you give me a sense of which states
    have a better rate of helping SNAP beneficiaries find work?
        Ms. Dean. You should tout this program. It is terrific. We
    really think it is a shining star amongst the state offerings.
    But it took Washington, with a very concerted and focused
    effort, several years to figure out how to open up, again,
    these broader workforce services to the SNAP-specific
    population. I think what distinguishes the program in many
    respects, and I should say USDA sends many states to go to
    visit to Washington. They run an annual training for other
    states who are interested in how to do this.
        One is thinking about who are we targeting? Again,
    individuals who are temporarily unemployed versus someone who
    has been out of the workforce for years, folks with different
    educational ranges, and also where they live, and what jobs are
    available. Thinking first, about who am I focused on, and what
    types of services do they need? And is there a match between
    the services this individual needs, and what is available in
    the community? Individuals are also allowed to volunteer. They
    are working with highly motivated individuals who want this
    help, so that has a lot to do with the success rate, because
    they are motivated, and there is a great connection, and a
    service that is appropriate for the individual.
        So your broader question about what do we know about other
    states' programs, actually very little, and that is why it was
    so terrific, in the 2014 Farm Bill, that the Committee, along
    with some other changes that it made to employment and training
    with the demonstrations required that USDA work with states to
    set up performance metrics, so that there would be more regular
    and routine reporting appropriate to what the state was
    running, not consistent across all 50 states. We will have a
    better sense of what is working well. Most states run job
    search and workfare, and most states use their Federal funds,
    and some 50/50 funds, but they do not leverage as much as they
    could.
        Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Thank you very much. And I don't mind
    you singing the praises of my state, but they are doing a good
    job, so I appreciate you saying that.
        Ms. Dean. Yes. They are.
        Mr. Newhouse. Ms. Muth, the current farm bill included a
    pilot program known as the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive.
    The grant program is intended to help SNAP beneficiaries obtain
    access to fruits and vegetables. I have heard the San Antonio
    Food Bank received a grant last year. Can you talk about the
    rollout of this program, and its impact on nutrition outcomes
    for SNAP beneficiaries?
        Ms. Muth. I am not familiar with the details of the
    program, since that is a relationship directly with the San
    Antonio Food Bank and the USDA, but I will say that is an issue
    of great interest from everyone within the state, from the
    community-based organizations to even retailers in Texas are
    interested in how we incentivize those nutritious options for
    SNAP recipients.
        Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Yes, I am just interested to see how
    well it has worked around the country. But, like I said, 5
    minutes goes by really quickly, but I appreciate all of you
    being here and contributing to this conversation. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Nolan, 5
    minutes. Mr. Benishek, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome. Thanks for
    being here. Many of my constituents ask me the same thing every
    time we talk about SNAP, okay, and I am just going to the work
    requirement, fraud, and how would somebody transition out of
    SNAP when they get a job? So those are the three things that
    come up whenever I speak to constituents, or when they bring it
    up to me. And I understand some of the questions that are
    brought up, somebody wants to work, but can't find a job. The
    people that I talk to are concerned about the people that don't
    want to work, but are staying on the rolls. How do we
    differentiate that, I mean, and what are the things that we
    could do to help people that actually want to work be still
    eligible for the program? Can you talk about that? Ms. Muth,
    what are they doing in Texas?
        Ms. Muth. In Texas, the work portion of the SNAP Program is
    administered by another agency, but I do think that most of our
    recipients do have some type of employment. And for those that
    don't, there are requirements that they participate, and the
    time limits. And Ms. Dean may be able to give you a better
    picture of that from across the state.
        Mr. Benishek. Ms. Dean, do you have any input there?
        Ms. Dean. Well, first, the program's eligibility rules
    allow low wage workers to participate in the program. So, for
    example, a family of three, their monthly gross income needs to
    be below $2,200 a month, so there are many, many families who
    are working and participating in the program. My colleague just
    reminded me that about 87 percent of families are either
    working in the year before or the year after SNAP
    participation, so it is not just while they are on the program.
    We have workers who are in and out of the workforce who then
    avail themselves of the program. So there is a high connection
    to work for folks on the program.
        But I just want to spend a minute, or a second, given the
    time, also just calling out that we do have a growing number of
    extremely poor families in this country, the folks who are
    living below 50 percent of the poverty----
        Mr. Benishek. Well, no, I am all for the people that are
    really poor, and who are unable to find work, to access the
    program. That is why we want to be sure that there are enough
    funds to help those people.
        Ms. Dean. Yes.
        Mr. Benishek. But not the people that I talk to see this
    all the time, where people are turning down work to stay on the
    program. How do we sort that out?
        Ms. Dean. Yes. We constantly, in this program, fight the
    individual anecdote, but I will----
        Mr. Benishek. Well, I talk to restaurant owners, for
    example, that are looking for waitresses.
        Ms. Dean. Yes.
        Mr. Benishek. The can't find a waitress. That seems like a
    pretty good entry level job for someone who doesn't have a job,
    but they can't find a waitress who is willing to stay for any
    period of time because they lose their benefits. So I am trying
    to figure out how do we make this work so that people who----
        Ms. Dean. They lose their benefits meaning they are----
        Mr. Benishek. Well, I don't know exactly why they are not
    taking the job, but they don't stay on the job.
        Ms. Dean. Right.
        Mr. Benishek. Okay? There are some employers that are
    looking for a waitress, which is not a skilled job. That is a
    job that somebody could learn and be good at without a lot of
    formal training. And, to me, it seems like a good access to the
    workforce job.
        Ms. Dean. Yes.
        Mr. Benishek. So how do we make this easier to determine
    whether you can't get a job or you don't want a job?
        Ms. Dean. Well, I think that is the incredible challenge.
    Certainly doing more to connect available jobs to SNAP
    employment and training, to making sure that the employers are
    telling SNAP where the jobs are so that participants know where
    the jobs are is one step. But, it is difficult. The individual
    you are talking about, someone who is work avoidant, could
    appear that way when, in fact, we also have many, many
    individuals who are homeless, who do not have child care, who
    might not have----
        Mr. Benishek. Well, I know, but, that is not the case of
    the people that I am talking about. Because, I talk to people a
    lot in my job, because I go around to the district, and talk to
    people about what their issues are, and that is not what you
    bring up, okay? It is not anecdotal. It is a real problem. So I
    want to see the needy people get the benefit and make it work,
    but we haven't come up with a good answer here in Committee
    about this sort of problem. And, unfortunately, I am out of
    time. The 5 minutes goes really fast.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
    LaMalfa, 5 minutes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just as a preface
    here, concerns expressed earlier in the Committee about, again,
    the reason for these hearings, being like a prelude for the
    next farm bill making cuts to the program. That is kind of not
    helpful in what we are really trying to do. A big part of our
    job should be, and is, government oversight of any program or
    government operation, whether it is this Committee, or Defense,
    or any other committee's venue. We are just looking for
    solutions to make any program go better and have the people
    that are the beneficiaries and users of it benefit more, and
    better use it. I don't enjoy that that gets spun into other
    things sometimes, so we want all of our government customers,
    as we are--as we serve them, to do better.
        So, that said, Ms. Muth, in our review of SNAP so far, this
    Committee has learned a lot about the value of public and
    private partnerships, and the impact it can have when
    administering a Federal program at the local level. So has this
    been utilized fairly widely with regard to SNAP in these
    partnerships, and what are the things that might be improved or
    made more useful by the public-private partnerships?
        Ms. Muth. In public-private partnerships, we have a number
    of partnerships, and sometimes I hate to call a contractual
    relationship a partnership, but we contract with a number of
    private companies that play a role in part of the SNAP
    delivery. So, as I mentioned, EBT would be one area where we
    are able to draw on expertise, financial expertise, that we
    don't have within the state. And then we have a number of
    partnerships that occur at local level, with a variety of
    organizations. We are a big state in Texas. We are a state
    administered program, and so sometimes as we sit in Austin, we
    are far away from what is happening in those local communities.
    But when we partner with organizations----
        Mr. LaMalfa. You know, the Texas delegation is always
    reminding us how big Texas is.
        Ms. Muth. Yes, I know. We have to. We have done a number of
    things, I mentioned the community partner program. We also have
    a partnership with the food banks in Texas, and we do have a
    demonstration waiver with USDA, where food banks are able to do
    some of that initial data collection.
        Mr. LaMalfa. So, I am sorry, the time thing is always----
        Ms. Muth. Yes.
        Mr. LaMalfa.--but we will--so by and large it is pretty
    positive----
        Ms. Muth. Absolutely.
        Mr. LaMalfa.--and using local infrastructure, and bang for
    the buck, and getting it to the ground quicker and more
    efficiently is good. Is there any downside with the work at
    that level with the Federal interface?
        Ms. Muth. There are some limitations at the Federal level.
    The demonstration waiver that we have, we are one of three
    states that have a similar demonstration waiver to allow the
    food banks to do that data collection, and have that count as
    the interview process. So there would be an opportunity to look
    at if that was worth expansion.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Good. Thank you. Ms. Dean, I am from
    California. It is another pretty big state, but we also have
    those waivers that also allow the on-demand and telephone
    interviews in lieu of a scheduled face to face interview, in
    determining eligibility and re-certs. And so, as was mentioned
    earlier on, the flexibility allows the resources to be utilized
    much more efficiently in other areas, stronger verification. I
    wonder how much value is there that direct communication might
    have in the interaction with the recipient so that; first, they
    are getting what they need; and second, you are having the cues
    you pick up from that interaction in determining either
    eligibility or re-certification. How important is keeping the
    digital process, but also having the integrity of the program
    with that face to face interaction? How is that a flexibility
    that is needed one way or the other more so?
        Ms. Dean. So the state is held to the same standard for
    accuracy whether the interview is over the phone or in person
    when they are re-reviewing their cases. And this was an area
    where there was a lot of trepidation early on. Could we have a
    robust interview? Do you need to look someone in the eye? Ms.
    Muth can correct me, but I think that states have really had a
    very positive experience. They have learned to interview
    differently over the phone.
        One of the nice things also that technology has afforded
    is, at the same time telephone interviews were coming on, many
    states can now pull down real time data about the household. So
    I have sat in on interviews where the client says, my child
    support payment is no longer coming through, and the case
    worker now can pull up child support data and say, well, wait a
    minute, I saw that information was posted for February. There
    are other tools that have expanded at the same time we moved to
    phone interviews. So it has been terrific. States can always,
    if they are concerned, pull the individual in, and if the
    individual needs help, can also go in and ask for that face to
    face help.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
    Thompson, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ladies, thank you so
    much for being here, part of this panel. The SNAP program is a
    very important program, there is no doubt about it, but it is a
    very complex program because people bring all kinds of
    different histories. We have folks who are part of
    intergenerational poverty. We have people who wake up in the
    morning, find themselves in bad times. We have people
    experiencing mental illness, maybe substance abuse, those who
    are incarcerated. It is so complex, and that is why it is
    difficult to find one solution. One solution is not going to
    work on it. If we do a cookie cutter solution, at the end of
    the day, with our reauthorization of SNAP, we have failed. We
    have failed a lot of Americans.
        I prefer to see SNAP, actually, the purpose of it is not so
    much a program, but a pathway. A path that works in a
    functional way to lift people out of poverty, to achieve
    greater opportunity, to provide a means for upper mobility. I
    would obviously put SNAP in with a lot of other programs that
    we do that don't do that today, that tend to keep people down,
    and suppressed, and they never realize the American Dream. And
    so I want to go down a path that we haven't asked a lot about.
    And, Ms. Dean, or whoever would like to respond, I want to look
    at, and correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that
    the eligibility for SNAP is generally at or below the 130
    percent of poverty line. For a family of three it is calculated
    $26,100. Now, that is according to an October 30, 2014 rule.
        We know that, and we talk about, or I talk about, and I
    hear others talk about, that we have a savings crisis in our
    country, that families don't have that insulation so when
    things go bad, and you have a bad day, and you wake up and you
    lose your job, or you go in the hospital, or your kid gets
    sick, or the furnace goes out, we really have a crisis in
    savings.
        And so what I want to ask you about, actually, are the
    household SNAP resource limits, because they ought to be
    adequate so that, and those are my calculations: $2,250 in
    countable resources, $3,250 if you have at least one person 60
    years of age or older, or is disabled, but that is household.
    Certain property is exempt, is my understanding. Most cars are
    exempt. That is a bit arbitrary state by state, a lot of
    variability. So my question is straightforward. Are these
    limits adequate without further economically destabilizing the
    households in question?
        Ms. Dean. We do believe that the Federal asset rules are
    too restrictive; you put it exactly as I would have, which is
    that if you cannot accumulate some modest savings, you can't
    inoculate yourself from life's ups and downs. If my hot water
    heater breaks, my car breaks down; that financial stability,
    that personal insurance of some modest savings, is what can
    prevent families from falling deeper into poverty.
        So I completely agree, and that really is one of the main
    drivers for why states have taken advantage of the flexibility
    to relax that asset test, to allow for families to accumulate
    some modest savings, which was a very bipartisan goal in the
    2002 Farm Bill.
        Mr. Thompson. Okay. It kind of brings us a natural
    transition to my next question. Ms. Muth, you state that it is
    important to maintain some consistencies between states when
    implementing SNAP because benefits are portable across state
    lines. Those in border towns are especially impacted by the
    inconsistencies between states. I represent 24 percent of the
    land mass in Pennsylvania, high across the northern tier. What
    are some existing options that might make it difficult for
    recipients and the state to maintain consistency across states,
    and what should we do about that?
        Ms. Muth. I don't see any current barriers. I think in
    Texas we have a lot of people that either come shop in Texas,
    or that our SNAP recipients are shopping in other states. I
    think the issues that might come about if there were different
    rules that applied, and that the retailers were enforcing
    different rules, whether you live in Texas, or whether you live
    in New Mexico, for example. But today I am not aware of any
    issues that we have with our clients who are shopping across
    state, because it is fairly consistent.
        Mr. Thompson. Yes. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his extra time, I
    appreciate that. Ms. Lujan Grisham, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    the panel and the dialogue, as we try to figure out how we
    protect those families and support them to make sure that this
    benefit is available to them, so that we don't have any hungry
    families and any hungry children. But, we are also looking at
    getting folks into a situation where they are not dependent on
    these benefits, it is a healthy dialogue. But I can also see
    how it can go awry, and I have talked about it a ton, frankly,
    in this Committee, that the intent of Congress to allow states
    to have more flexibility in how they operate SNAP and related
    programs is to really ensure that those states can target the
    constituents, and those families, in a meaningful way, and to
    take in the unique circumstances of each state so that they can
    administer those programs.
        But I get very concerned when that flexibility, and I am an
    old state bureaucrat. I loved flexibility, and was usually
    arguing with the Federal Government. But when that flexibility
    can be utilized in a way that does exactly the opposite of the
    intent of the core program, I really want to talk about what
    safeguards there are. Here is the example: in New Mexico, \1/2\
    of the SNAP benefits go to children. One out of every three
    children in New Mexico is at risk for hunger. It is the fourth
    highest child hunger rate in the nation, so we are still
    identified as one of the most hungry states in the country. Our
    unemployment rate is the highest in the country, and it has
    steadily increased for the last year. In fact, our economic
    situation is so dire that it has really created apathy, and an
    environment where I can tell you that most bipartisan state
    leaders are not finding a way clear out of this economic
    predicament.
        However, in that environment that I have just spoken of, in
    our state, the governor has unilaterally re-imposed very
    restrictive work requirements on SNAP recipients, even though
    there are no jobs. It is also the only state in the country
    where we are losing population, because there are no options.
    These children and families who were not intended to be off
    this benefit at this time, will be kicked off. And, in fact,
    the recent estimates are up to 80,000 New Mexicans will lose
    their benefits due to those job requirements to find jobs that,
    frankly, don't exist. So how do we reconcile that, and Ms.
    Dean, what can Congress do that assures that flexibility
    doesn't become a tool to restrict the benefits that were
    intended to shore up these poor families and take care of these
    poor children?
        Ms. Dean. That is a big question. When you are talking
    about work requirements, do you mean the time limit, or work
    requirements on ABAWDs, do you mean the time limit, or work
    requirements on families with children? I just want to make
    sure----
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. It is both.
        Ms. Dean. That is what I thought. Okay.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Unfortunately.
        Ms. Dean. So, first off, one of the key things that the
    statute does that you all have done, in addition to the
    regulations, is knowing that states have choices and options.
    There are some key parameters that, if you want to, for
    example, do online services, or talk to people in person, those
    kinds of things, you still have to process benefits once
    someone presents themselves as needing help, if they are within
    the Federal timeline. So timeliness and accuracy are key
    metrics that the Feds hold states accountable to. And they say
    you have a lot of different choices and options, but you must
    help needy people when they present themselves and provide all
    of their information. Those are cornerstones to the program,
    and really help identify where there are problems.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Do you think we could strengthen those
    cornerstones? And, again, I believe in state flexibility. I
    also want these benefits to be targeted in a meaningful way,
    and I want real opportunity, so that we don't have persistent
    poverty. But I also know that this safety net is critical.
        Ms. Dean. Yes.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. And it is clear to me that too often the
    Federal Government finds that those resources seem a bit
    restrictive to them to actually do accountability. And I get
    lots of responses that say, ``Well, they are within the work
    requirement regulations, so we aren't going to do anything
    about those 80,000 who are now off.''
        Ms. Dean. Right. And that is the key question is, when
    there are work requirements, when the state is saying, we want
    to engage these folks in some activity to test their
    willingness to work, and, hopefully, to encourage work, what is
    the measure of accountability there? Leaving the program
    doesn't mean you got a job. It might mean that you were asked
    to do something you couldn't do. There was no child care for
    your young baby. You might have no jobs.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. No jobs in my state.
        Ms. Dean. And so what do we do to ensure that those efforts
    are engaging in the results that everyone says they want?
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr. Davis,
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to each
    of the witnesses for being here today. A lot of my questions
    were taken by earlier Members of this Committee, but it is
    imperative that I reiterate some of the comments that Mr.
    LaMalfa made. And I really want to commend Doug, and also
    Chairman Conaway, and the Chairwoman of the Nutrition
    Subcommittee, my colleague Jackie Walorski, for actually
    talking about SNAP, and bringing folks like each of you in to
    talk about some of the successes of the program. Because we
    would be keeping SNAP recipients, in states like Texas, and my
    home State of Illinois, we would be doing them a disservice if
    we didn't try and make the program even better, and more
    respective of the needs of those families who are utilizing
    those benefits.
        There is a lot of talk about public-private partnerships.
    That was my question, but I don't want to reiterate it again.
    Although, in one aspect, based upon some of the discussion here
    today, we seem to have focused those public-private partnership
    discussions on more urban areas. And I know that there are many
    urban areas in the great State of Texas, as my Chairman likes
    to remind me of, but I have a lot of rural areas, just like you
    do in Texas. Can you expand, maybe, Ms. Muth, on what
    opportunities for rural areas there can be for the public-
    private partnerships?
        Ms. Muth. We do have public and private partnerships in
    both rural and urban areas. Obviously, in some instances, it is
    harder to find the partnership in a rural area because there
    are just not as many entities there, but we have a very
    successful partnership with a food bank in Lubbock. They
    participate in that demonstration waiver that we have, and they
    target rural areas to provide access to individuals in those
    areas. And so it is incumbent on the state. We often look at
    that issue, and those are where we work very hard to identify
    and recruit partners, and sometimes we have to work a little
    bit harder to do that. But they are there, and we do have those
    partnerships that are very fruitful. We work with the faith
    community as well in those partnerships, and so that is an
    opportunity in rural areas also.
        Mr. Davis. Great. I know there has been a lot of discussion
    on technology, and technological advances, and getting more of
    a coordinated effort for our states to be able to serve the
    recipients of SNAP benefits, and other benefits, to work
    together. I know there was some discussion about that just a
    few minutes ago. Is there anything that you may want to relay
    to this Committee we haven't asked about how to make this
    technology work even better, and in a more cohesive fashion, to
    better get the benefits to the recipients? Whomever wants to
    answer.
        Ms. Muth. I will take one, because I just had a thought
    that had come to me, and I am Stacy, you might remember the
    name, but there is a partnership right now with a number of
    states, one of the things we have to do is confirm whether
    someone is receiving benefits in another state.
        Mr. Davis. Yes.
        Ms. Muth. And each state has to individually contact other
    states. And there is a partnership with seven or so states
    right now. It is something that states have to buy into to
    participate in that just really seems like there should be a
    national database as we are spending a lot of resources. And I
    will tell you, often workers in other states somehow get my
    name and number to confirm whether a recipient is receiving
    benefits in Texas. It is not an efficient process, and I don't
    think it is an effective process, and technology could really
    help us there.
        Mr. Davis. Okay.
        Ms. Dean. Can I add one more----
        Mr. Davis. Yes, absolutely.
        Ms. Dean.--which is the procurement of large statewide
    systems, that many states, particularly small states, are
    largely left on their own to sort out how to undertake a large
    procurement and can often be multi-billion dollar companies.
    And sometimes, frankly, are just mismatched in terms of knowing
    what to ask for, how to ensure the contracts will get them the
    best that they can, and the best value for your investment as
    well, because the Feds are putting up a significant share of
    those funds. So finding ways to leverage information across
    states, and perhaps to collaboratively purchase, say, if eight
    states are working with one vendor, there must be some way to
    leverage their shared----
        Mr. Davis. Is the USDA providing any of that type of
    technical assistance?
        Ms. Dean. Well, it is not just USDA, because most
    eligibility systems will include Medicaid, child care, TANF. So
    it is a multi-Federal agency, a multi-state agency, and a lot
    of efficiency is lost in that effort.
        Mr. Davis. Great. My time has expired. Thank you all.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I had a couple of real
    quick ones to finish out. Ms. Muth, you mentioned that Texas
    has a 96 percent efficiency rating on getting benefits
    qualified on time. What is the definition of on time?
        Ms. Muth. There are Federal standards related to
    timeliness, and for applications, there is generally a 30 day
    timeframe in which we have to process that. But if a household
    meets expedited criteria, then we have to process that in 7
    days. But Texas actually has state law that says if you meet
    the expedite criteria, which basically means you are in
    immediate need for assistance, that we have to process that by
    the next day.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Ms. Muth. So, on average, it takes us about 14 days to
    process applications.
        The Chairman. And the 96 percent is a blended approval
    rating on all----
        Ms. Muth. That is correct.
        The Chairman. States share the administrative costs. I am a
    CPA by trade, so are there efficiency standards, or measures
    that have been developed, or are developed, to look at number
    of employees per beneficiary, dollars spent per beneficiary,
    all those kind of things that would lead us to believe that on
    the administrative side, we are getting the best bang for the
    buck, and then help states who may not be providing the same
    level of their half? In other words, they are limiting their
    access to these better technologies through a state decision.
    Are there ways to look at that from an efficiency standpoint?
        Ms. Muth. That is a great question. USDA does publish the
    administrative costs, but it is so difficult because every
    state is organized a little bit differently, and groups
    programs together differently, and you have a major----
        The Chairman. Would there be value in looking at some
    common denominator that you could then look at, dollars is one
    thing, but if we had the number of beneficiary payments, is
    there some sort of way to look to see which states are doing it
    better, and then say to the other states here is a state that
    is doing it better?
        Ms. Muth. Absolutely. And also, at the state level, they
    hold those accountable through the appropriations process as
    well.
        The Chairman. All three of you, and Ms. Dean, you mentioned
    it, really, answering Mr. Davis's question, but are there
    formalized best sharing--convening organizations within the 50
    states, or 54 jurisdictions, that separate this program so
    small states can get together and share best practices they
    have implemented would that be beneficial?
        Ms. Dean. Sure. There is a state-based organization, the
    American Public Human Services Administration, and they are
    here, which is great. If states are members of that convening
    organization, they get together and gather. The Feds also pull
    folks together to share, but not always across program, not
    always with respect to a business approach, or a method of
    doing work; states would care about that across SNAP, Medicaid,
    TANF, and child care. We tend to think within single programs.
    There is more we can do there. And, frankly, states and the
    Federal agencies feel constricted in their ability to convene
    and travel because there is a lot of public scrutiny of
    spending dollars in that way. But it is so important and so
    valuable. We need to see more of it.
        The Chairman. All right. The 20 hour work requirement, that
    is not just one job? They could have multiple jobs----
        Ms. Dean. They could.
        The Chairman.--to get to 20? Okay. And then, this is
    probably outside y'all's lanes directly, but could you walk me
    through real quick the interrelationship between qualification
    for SNAP and the school lunch program, the school nutrition
    programs, and eligibility there? Is there a link between those?
        Ms. Dean. Yes, absolutely. Children on SNAP automatically
    qualify for the free school meals program, and there is a legal
    obligation for states and school----
        The Chairman. That is lunch and breakfast?
        Ms. Dean. Yes. There is a requirement to cross-enroll, and
    a performance standard there.
        The Chairman. All right. Okay. Is that the only way
    children qualify, or can they still qualify for free or reduced
    lunch if they come off the SNAP program----
        Ms. Dean. Yes. They may fill out an application and qualify
    based on family income----
        The Chairman. But SNAP just automatically gets----
        Ms. Dean. Absolutely, yes.
        The Chairman. Well, I appreciate our witnesses being here
    today. We get criticized for the number of hearings we have had
    on this issue. We spend $80 billion a year on it. I am not
    embarrassed by the opportunity to present, and hopefully in a
    fair and balanced method, so to speak, the good, the bad, and
    what we are trying to get done. My goal is to get the policy
    right. I don't have any numbers on any savings, or anything
    like that at this stage. We just want to get the policy right.
    You can't know that unless you have the examination of the
    policy to see what is working and what is not working. And so I
    appreciate you being here today.
        As Mr. Thompson mentioned, we serve 45 to 46 million
    people. There is not a 30 second pithy little snippy statement
    that captures adequately the complexity of the system. One
    side, our side, typically focuses on the anecdotes such as the
    27 year old California surfer, with not a lot of sympathy for
    being on food stamps and maintaining his surfer lifestyle. Mr.
    McGovern and others focus on the folks who will always be on
    benefits, children, or who should be, the elderly, and the
    disabled, and so we talk past each other an awful lot of the
    time when we are trying to deal with this thing. So our goal,
    publicly stated, is to make sure we get the policies correct,
    and then we will score those policies, and see what we can
    afford. But the real goal, at this stage, is to get those
    policies right.
        One of the things that goes on, if I am a private donor in
    a not-for-profit, or a faith-based organization, and they don't
    do it correctly, then I could police that, and move them out.
    These programs are not policeable by the donors, by the
    taxpayers, per se, and so that is a job that we should be
    fulfilling, and we haven't for a long, long time. So, we are
    building a body of knowledge that this group didn't have
    because for a long, long time we just let this system go,
    without a great deal of understanding. So don't apologize for
    my colleagues who criticize us for having too many of these
    hearings, but I appreciate our witnesses for being here.
        Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
    hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
    additional material and supplemental written responses from the
    witnesses to any question posed by a Member. This hearing on
    the Committee of Agriculture is adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
     Submitted Letter by Tracy Wareing Evans, Executive Director, American
                       Public Human Services Association
    March 14, 2016

      Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
      Chairman,
      House Agriculture Committee,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
      Ranking Minority Member,
      House Agriculture Committee,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson:

        Thank you for this opportunity to provide written testimony on
    behalf of the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) for
    the record of your March 2, 2016, hearing on state agency use of
    options in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
        APHSA is a bipartisan, nonprofit membership organization
    representing state and local human service agencies through their top-
    level leadership. APHSA has been working to improve public health and
    human services for over 80 years by collaborating with state and local
    agencies, partners and national policymakers to promote effective
    policies, innovative strategies, and effective service delivery
    systems. With and through our members, APHSA advances comprehensive
    solutions for the issues facing human services by working with a broad
    spectrum of partners and stakeholders.
    APHSA's Framework
        The framework through which our members see both SNAP, and health
    and human services programs broadly, is expressed through APHSA's
    Pathways initiative. This member-driven proposal for a more effective
    and outcome-focused human services system calls for sustainable and
    meaningful outcomes for individuals and families focused on four impact
    areas: achieving gainful employment and independence; stronger
    families, adults, and communities; healthier families, adults, and
    communities; and sustained well-being of children and youth. Our views
    are driven by the need to shape the future of human services programs
    so that they account for the many changes now taking place in our
    country--in the economy, social structures, demographics,
    communications, and other major sectors that bear directly on our
    national success and well-being. These broad changes are challenging us
    to rapidly increase the effectiveness and value of our work. In
    partnership with communities across the nation, our agencies are
    already creatively generating solutions for the many needs and concerns
    in our field through focused leadership, path-breaking partnerships,
    and new answers to old problems.
        We are optimistic about the unprecedented opportunities we have to
    maintain the best of our current systems while creating a new
    environment for improved, long-term outcomes for children and families.
    Some examples of these opportunities include exciting developments in
    breakthrough technologies, new forms of communication, fresh business
    process models, and alternative funding support. These new approaches,
    tools, and relationships are converging to transform our work into a
    system that creates community-wide change and supports meaningful and
    sustainable outcomes. These dramatic shifts are helping to lift
    individuals toward independence, add value to communities, strengthen
    families, and achieve more at less cost--positive changes that benefit
    us all.
    Key Considerations for a Strong SNAP Program
        The strength and health of families, adults, and communities rest
    on a broad continuum of widely available conditions and resources as
    well as individual and family capacities and abilities. Among these is
    the means to access proper nutrition, and Federal nutrition programs
    play multiple and important roles in supporting this result. As those
    who are responsible for managing SNAP at the state and local levels, we
    know that SNAP is a key nutrition support that has served to
    significantly alleviate hunger and poverty for many decades.
        APHSA and its members have identified a number of core
    considerations that can help assure SNAP will be effective in
    strengthening families and will be efficient and administratively
    feasible. We list below several of these issues, and proposals for
    their associated policy improvements, that touch on issues raised in
    your March 2 hearing:

       SNAP's role in supporting work and building capacity--
            Support for entering the workforce and retaining gainful
            employment is a key goal for our agencies and a critical
            activity that can help move more individuals and families out
            of poverty. SNAP's role in this goal could be greatly
            strengthened if the rules and funding for the SNAP Employment &
            Training program meshed more seamlessly with other work support
            efforts and could more easily be made part of a comprehensive
            employment support effort. The current E&T pilots should shed
            important light on how SNAP can advance in this critical area,
            and clearly beneficial impacts from these pilots should be
            implemented even before the pilots have concluded. Additional,
            similar pilots that can evaluate other strategies to build
            individual and community capacity should be promptly developed
            and tested.

       Testing and implementing other successful innovations--
            Modernizing SNAP must include accelerated development of
            innovative alternatives that improve the program's impacts and
            administration, followed by rapid evaluation and prompt
            implementation of successful improvements. The Employment &
            Training pilots now under way should be a model for numerous
            other pilots covering such major program aspects as
            improvements in nutrition, overall family well-being, and
            independence; verification and program integrity; and new
            blended and braided funding models, including partnerships with
            other programs and sectors. Another example could be pilots
            that incorporate use of the Modified Adjusted Gross Income
            (MAGI) and eligibility decisions from health programs to
            initiate and complete most of the SNAP eligibility process.

       SNAP has contributed significantly to reducing need and to
            providing important bridge supports for those affected by job
            loss and other setbacks--It can respond quickly to recessions,
            food price inflation, and the changing needs of individuals and
            job markets. SNAP's benefits flow through the existing retail
            food system and generate multiplier effects on the broader
            economy. SNAP's benefit structure must continue to be able to
            provide this kind of immediate, effective, and sustained
            response. SNAP is also a key element in preventing ``heavier-
            touch'' problems down the road in health, nutrition, family
            stability, and independence. As the traditional foundation of
            nutritional and bridge supports across the nation, it has
            enhanced the effectiveness of other programs with varying
            benefits and standards, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy
            Families.

       While SNAP must retain its current strengths, it can and
            should become a far more impactful and efficient program--SNAP
            must become much more effectively aligned with other programs
            such as those in the area of health. SNAP also must take far
            greater advantage of new technology and electronic data
            exchanges that can speed the application process, avoid
            duplication of work for both participants and administrators,
            connect seamlessly with other programs, strengthen access, and
            further improve program integrity. By often functioning in
            isolation, SNAP misses many opportunities to interact with
            other programs and thus to enhance access and efficiency. One
            clear example is the inability to take full advantage of the
            new information systems being implemented for health care,
            which can connect to SNAP in limited ways but cannot bridge
            SNAP's differences in definitions of income and households and
            its approaches to interviewing and verification. Greater
            interoperability and alignment among these large systems would
            improve access by enhancing ``single-portal'' contact and
            reducing duplication in collecting and verifying case
            information.

       Any changes that would include block-granting SNAP must
            avoid problematic elements of other human services block
            grants--SNAP must retain its current responsiveness, including
            rapid adjustments for cost increases and caseload growth; a
            national floor for benefits; and alignment of state
            administrative match rates with other major human service
            programs. Any reductions in SNAP expenditures must be carefully
            assessed for their impacts on both recipients and the states'
            ability to meet their needs properly, as well as the retail
            food economy. SNAP benefit or administrative match reductions
            could have a number of undesirable consequences, including
            diminishing agencies' ability to properly administer this very
            complex and labor-intensive program.

       All health and human service programs must allow and support
            the most up-to-date and effective business practices in their
            administration--They must become a more seamless and efficient
            element of a person- and family-centered approach. A number of
            current SNAP laws, regulations, and administrative rulings
            prevent the program from taking full advantage of advances that
            would reduce administrative costs, improve customer service,
            and strengthen program impacts. Certain policies beyond SNAP
            also have similar impacts, such as those that keep SNAP and
            other programs from freely using important databases that could
            improve administration and access. Similarly, states must have
            the option to implement horizontally integrated systems
            (particularly their information technology components) that
            align and streamline the eligibility and verification processes
            for SNAP, health, cash assistance, and other human services
            programs. Such integration will improve access, save
            administrative expense, improve program integrity, and maximize
            states' ability to take advantage of extended enhanced Federal
            funding.

       Program simplification--APHSA has for decades urged
            simplification of SNAP rules, and proper credit goes to
            Congress, several Administrations, and the program's
            stakeholders for reducing complexity in many areas. However,
            SNAP remains one of the most challenging assistance programs
            for customers to understand and for agencies to administer, and
            remains tied to eligibility and verification processes that are
            more difficult and less common than those in most other major
            programs.

       The ``cliff effect''--Among the most unfortunate results of
            multi-program disconnects is the ``cliff effect,'' in which
            modest increases in income or in a given program's benefits
            trigger significant reductions in other programs. While SNAP
            has provisions that help ameliorate some of these concerns, on
            the whole it and other human services programs have far to go.
            Among other negative results, the cliff effect is often a
            significant disincentive to begin working or to increase hours
            and pay.

       Modern customer interfaces--Much of our population, of
            whatever income level, has long since made the transition to
            engaging government and other sectors electronically, through
            personal devices, and without the need for unreasonable
            paperwork and repetition of data already in the system. SNAP
            has begun making this transition, and indeed was a pioneer in
            changing fully to electronic card benefits nearly a decade and
            a half ago. But again, it has far to go in allowing simple
            electronic access, interoperability among related assistance
            programs, alternatives to face-to-face interviews, and use of
            the vast amount of electronic data now residing in government
            systems. Reducing these barriers could enhance single-portal
            access and eligibility, cut the time and effort to submit
            verification information, and help the many SNAP participants
            who must work during normal office hours.

        Returning to your hearing's key theme of state options, it is clear
    from these principles that a sound SNAP program relies on a number of
    important state administrative options--both those already in place and
    new areas of flexibility referenced in the points above. It is
    certainly proper that states be held accountable for suitable program
    performance and use of public funds in their application of options,
    and we believe that SNAP's very thorough quality assurance and
    oversight procedures will continue to yield that result. As you
    continue your review of SNAP and prepare for program changes in the
    next farm bill, we urge you to keep in mind the critical role that a
    reasonable degree of state flexibility must play in successful
    administration of SNAP.
        We will be pleased to provide additional information on any of
    these issues. Please contact Larry Goolsby, Director of Strategic
    Initiatives, [Redacted] with any questions or requests.
                Sincerely,

    Tracy Wareing Evans,
    Executive Director, APHSA.

                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

       (THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: THE RETAILER PERSPECTIVE)

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:59 a.m., in Room
    1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael
    Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Conaway, Neugebauer,
    Goodlatte, Lucas, Rogers, Thompson, Gibbs, Austin Scott of
    Georgia, Crawford, DesJarlais, Gibson, Hartzler, Benishek,
    LaMalfa, Davis, Yoho, Walorski, Allen, Bost, Rouzer, Abraham,
    Moolenaar, Newhouse, Kelly, Peterson, David Scott of Georgia,
    Walz, Fudge, McGovern, DelBene, Vela, Lujan Grisham, Kuster,
    Nolan, Bustos, Kirkpatrick, Aguilar, Adams, Graham, and
    Ashford.
        Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Haley Graves, Jadi
    Chapman, Mary Nowak, Scott C. Graves, Stephanie Addison, Faisal
    Siddiqui, John Konya, Lisa Shelton, Liz Friedlander, Matthew
    MacKenzie, Nicole Scott, and Carly Reedholm.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
                         IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

        The Chairman. Good morning. This hearing of the Committee
    on Agriculture entitled, The Past, Present, and Future of SNAP:
    The Retailer Perspective, will come to order. I have asked
    Michael Bost to open us with a quick prayer. Michael?
        Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we can bow our heads?
    Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day. We thank you
    for the blessings of this day. We thank you for the opportunity
    that we can come together as a nation and meet, discuss
    business to try to make this nation better, greater. Lord, we
    thank you for the freedoms that we have in this nation, and for
    the men and women who have fought to make sure that those
    freedoms are kept. Lord, we thank you. We ask all these things
    in your Son, Jesus Christ's, name, amen.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I want to welcome our witnesses to
    today's hearing, and thank them for taking the time to share
    their perspectives as retailers serving SNAP recipients. This
    hearing, like those before, builds upon the Committee's top to
    bottom review of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
    or SNAP. As the Committee concludes our review, we will be in a
    position to make meaningful improvements to the program,
    improvements that benefit recipients, taxpayers, and those
    working as critical partners in carrying out the program. We
    often say the states are the front lines of serving SNAP
    recipients, but it is the retailers providing the food that
    interact directly with their customers on a monthly, weekly,
    and sometimes daily basis.
        Retailers are keenly aware of the challenges that face
    their customers as they shop in grocery stores, whether it be
    trying to provide the proper nutrition for their families, or
    how to best maximize their budgets. Today we will hear from a
    variety of retail businesses, ranging from a convenience store
    to a large grocery chain, about the various challenges and
    opportunities both retailers and recipients experience
    interacting with SNAP. We will discuss the process in becoming
    an authorized SNAP retailer, and how that varies from single
    store operators to franchise grocery store chains, and the
    initiatives taking place within stores to promote healthy food
    purchases. Furthermore, we will evaluate the opportunities with
    technology, as well as the various challenges facing rural
    communities, and how retailers are serving those areas.
        From color coded stamps to the current EBT system,
    technology has come a long way since the food stamp program was
    created in 1963. Technology is ever-changing. Today, food
    manufacturers are working to provide smart labels on packages
    that allow customers with cellphones to see ingredients,
    possible allergens, and genetic technology used to produce the
    food item. Credit card companies are now placing a chip into
    debit cards for more secure transactions. As technology
    evolves, we must ensure that SNAP is able to take advantage of
    these innovations, while still ensuring program integrity.
        We also have seen the way in which customers shop is
    evolving. My colleague from Michigan referenced in our last
    Nutrition Subcommittee hearing many grocery stores now offer
    wide selections of ready to consume or prepared meals. With
    these new food options, and various new purchasing
    opportunities available, consumers' shopping patterns are
    changing. We are beginning to see more consumers who prefer to
    shop for their groceries online, such as the elderly, who have
    difficulty shopping in a store, parents with two jobs and
    limited time, and those who just prefer the convenience.
    Retailers are adjusting to meet their customer demands.
        For those individuals living in rural America, accessing
    food can be quite the challenge. I know that from Texas'
    District 11, how some rural parts of the country can be, and
    how far a person must travel to reach a grocery store. As
    policymakers, we must be cognizant of the various laws we
    consider and regulations that are proposed to ensure that
    Washington is not making it harder for families to put food on
    their table, instead allowing SNAP to adapt to the changing
    needs and trends.
        I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to share
    their perspectives from the grocery aisle.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
                              Congress from Texas
        I want to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing and thank them
    for taking the time to share their perspectives as retailers serving
    SNAP recipients. This hearing, like those before, builds upon the
    Committee's top-to-bottom review of the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program, or SNAP, so as the Committee approaches
    reauthorization, we will be positioned to make meaningful improvements
    to the program--improvements to benefit recipients, taxpayers, and
    those working as critical partners in carrying out the program.
        We often say the states are on the front lines of serving SNAP
    recipients, but one could argue it is the stores providing food that
    directly interact with their customers on a monthly, weekly, or even
    daily basis. Retailers are keenly aware of the challenges their
    customers face as they shop in grocery stores, whether it be trying to
    provide the proper nutrition for their families or how best to maximize
    their budgets.
        Today, we will hear from a variety of retailer businesses, ranging
    from a convenience store to a national large grocery chain, about the
    various challenges and opportunities both retailers and recipients
    experience interacting with SNAP. We will discuss the process for
    becoming an authorized SNAP retailer and how that varies from single
    store operators to franchised grocery chains and the initiatives taking
    place within stores to promote healthy food purchases. Furthermore, we
    will evaluate the opportunities with technology, as well as the various
    challenges facing rural communities and how retailers are serving those
    areas.
        From color coded stamps to the current EBT system, technology has
    come a long way since the food stamp program was created in 1963.
    Technology is ever changing. Today, food manufacturers are working to
    provide smart labels on packages that allow customers with cellphones
    to see ingredients, possible allergens, and genetic technology used to
    produce the food item. Credit card companies are now placing a chip
    into debit cards for more secure transactions. As technology evolves,
    we must ensure that SNAP is able to take advantage of these
    innovations, while still ensuring program integrity is intact.
        We also have seen that the way in which consumers shop is evolving.
    As my colleague from Michigan referenced in our last Nutrition
    Subcommittee hearing, many grocery stores now offer a wide selection of
    ready to consume or prepared meals. With these new food options and
    various new purchasing opportunities available, consumer shopping
    patterns are changing. We are beginning to see more consumers who
    prefer to shop for their groceries online, such as the elderly who have
    difficultly shopping in a store, parents that work two jobs and have
    limited time, or those who just prefer the convenience. Retailers are
    adjusting to meet their customer demands.
        For those individuals living in rural America, accessing food can
    be quite the challenge. I know from my own experience traveling around
    Texas' 11th district, how rural some parts of the country can be and
    how far a person may have to travel to reach a grocery store. We as
    policymakers must be cognizant of the various laws we consider and
    regulations that are proposed to ensure that Washington is not making
    it harder for families to put food on the table, but instead allowing
    SNAP to adapt to these changing trends.
        I want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be here today
    to share their perspectives ``from the grocery aisle.''

        The Chairman. And, with that, I turn to the Ranking Member
    for any comments he would like. Collin?

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
                       IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
    welcome today's witnesses to the Committee. I look forward to
    their testimony. Retailers play an important role in the food
    chain, and this Committee focuses so much on farmers that the
    perspective of food retailers, and the role they play in
    getting food to consumers, sometimes gets lost. For many, a
    grocery store may not be easily accessible. This is why so-
    called small format retailers, who we are hearing from today,
    are so important. They can help bridge some of the distance,
    and meet consumer needs.
        I recently joined my colleagues expressing concerns about
    the proposed rule to modify SNAP retailer eligibility
    requirements, and I believe the proposed rule would threaten
    small format retailers' ability to participate in SNAP. It
    would reduce food access to many consumers who rely on these
    small retailers for their groceries, and it just is the wrong
    direction. So hopefully this issue can be addressed, moving
    forward. Larger retailers also face challenges, particularly
    when it comes to technology, so I will be looking to today's
    testimony to see if there is anything Congress can do to help
    these retailers better serve consumers. So, again, welcome to
    the Committee, witnesses, and I thank the chair, and yield
    back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The chair would
    request that other Members submit their opening statements for
    the record so that our witnesses may begin their testimony, and
    to ensure there is ample time for questions. I would now like
    to welcome to our witness table Ms. Kathy Hanna, Senior
    Director Enterprise Payments and Store Support, The Kroger
    Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. I would ask Mr. Rogers from Alabama
    to introduce our next witness. Yes.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have the honor today
    to introduce Mr. Jimmy Wright from the great State of Alabama.
    Jimmy is a single store operator of a family owned neighborhood
    market in Opelika, Alabama. Jimmy is an involved member of the
    community in Opelika, serving as President of the Opelika
    Community Development Corporation, and on the board of the
    National Grocer's Association. Jimmy, his wife Susan, and
    daughter Emily, are members of the First Baptist Church of
    Opelika, a church I have had the privilege of visiting several
    times, and it has a spectacularly beautiful sanctuary. You have
    a lot to be proud of.
        He has a unique perspective on what it is like to serve a
    diverse clientele, and to feed a community. Jimmy bought the
    market in Opelika in 1997, and has run this market as Wright's
    Market ever since. In 2012 Mr. Wright formed a relationship
    with a nonprofit ministry to open the Carver Neighborhood
    Market. Carver Neighborhood Market serves a community in South
    Atlanta that was once what is known as a food desert. Folks in
    South Atlanta had to previously drive 3 hours round trip on a
    bus just to shop for groceries. Jimmy's service to that
    community is a testament to his desire to give back to this
    country that has blessed him so much.
        Thanks to Jimmy for being here, and I know we all look
    forward to your testimony. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        The Chairman. I would also like to introduce Mr. Doug
    Beech. He is Counsel for Casey's General Stores, is that
    Ankeny, Iowa? Okay. And I would like to ask Mr. Lucas to
    introduce our last witness.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
    introduce Carl Martincich. He is the Vice President of Human
    Resources and Government Affairs at Love's Travel Stops and
    Country Stores. Love's is a large chain of truckstops serving
    rural areas that have busy interstates running through them.
    Travel stops such as Love's typically also have multiple
    businesses, such as fast food restaurants, within the store.
    Carl will discuss how their business model differs from other
    retailers, and what factors they use when deciding what food to
    stock on its shelves, and, most interesting, of course, the
    similarities between SNAP purchases and non-SNAP purchases of
    other customers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. With that, I would acknowledge Ms. Hanna and
    Mr. Beech. You need to be from a state which has a Member on
    the Committee. You get a much better introduction. Ms. Hanna,
    you may begin your testimony at your leisure. Thank you.

               STATEMENT OF KATHY HANNA, SENIOR DIRECTOR
        ENTERPRISE PAYMENTS AND STORE SUPPORT, THE KROGER CO.,
                   CINCINNATI, OH; ON BEHALF OF FOOD
                          MARKETING INSTITUTE

        Ms. Hanna. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Conaway,
    Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee. My name
    is Kathy Hanna, and I am the Senior Director of Enterprise
    Payments at The Kroger Company, based in Cincinnati, Ohio. I am
    also the past Chair of the Food Marketing Institute Electronic
    Payment Systems Committee. Kroger is the largest traditional
    grocer in the U.S., with nearly two dozen banner names, all of
    which share the same belief in building strong local ties and
    brand loyalty with our customers. Every day the Kroger family
    of companies makes a difference in the lives of 8\1/2\ million
    customers and 431,000 associates who shop or serve in our 2,778
    retail food stores in 35 states, and the District of Columbia.
        At Kroger we are interested in improving the health of all
    of our shoppers. More and more shoppers see the supermarket as
    a health or wellness destination. Kroger currently operates
    2,231 pharmacies, and 190 clinics. We employ dieticians,
    nutritionists to assist our shoppers in making healthy choices.
    Additionally, we employ chefs that hold cooking demonstrations,
    and provide recipe ideas for families shopping on a budget, or
    with specific dietary needs. These are benefits and services
    Kroger offers to all of our customers, regardless of how they
    are paying for their groceries. In Memphis and north
    Mississippi, Kroger recently partnered with AARP, who received
    a Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive grant from the USDA. This
    partnership allows us to incentify SNAP customers to purchase
    more fresh fruits and vegetables in our stores. Creative
    incentives such as this are a win-win for the grocery industry
    and our customers. In April of this year, 600 coupons were
    redeemed versus only 60 in October of last year.
        Grocers are the private partner with the government as the
    point of redemption for SNAP recipients, and are vested in
    ensuring the program runs as efficiently as possible. The
    national SNAP EBT system we have today is a result of
    legislation authored by then House Agriculture Nutrition
    Subcommittee Chairman Bob Goodlatte. Today SNAP is ubiquitous,
    quick, inexpensive to accept, and seamless amongst the states.
    At Kroger, our point of sale system is integrated to
    automatically prohibit SNAP benefits from being used to
    purchase non-allowable items. This efficiency is further
    enhanced by the fact that the rules are uniform across the
    country. Not only is this ubiquity essential on our programming
    side, it is key for our shoppers who rely on SNAP to have the
    same set of rules regardless of where they are redeeming their
    benefits.
        While SNAP EBT has been incredibly successful, we must now
    look to the future of EBT. SNAP EBT relies on almost 50 year
    old magnetic stripe technology. This legacy technology is
    currently being replaced here in the U.S. with chip cards in
    the credit card and debit card markets, numbering the days of
    magnetic stripe. Eventually the point of sale will move away
    from magnetic stripe, and we need to plan for what the next
    generation of EBT should look like. We should consider where
    there is a place for EBT as a mobile payment, or other
    solutions that would best serve our SNAP clients, and maintain
    the efficiencies and ubiquity of SNAP. We are always looking
    for opportunities to bring greater efficiencies and improvement
    to SNAP.
        One area where states vary widely is how many days of the
    month they distribute benefits. If a state only distributes
    benefits 1 to 3 days a month, it can create several operational
    challenges for retailers. The grocery industry is a very high
    volume business. We sell millions of food items every day. Our
    shelves are constantly being restocked, and we work very hard
    to keep checkout lines short and moving quickly. Serving large
    populations of customers on 1 or 2 days a month raises
    significant challenges. We support states spreading out their
    distribution to throughout the month to ensure better service
    and full selections for all customers.
        Another area we are focused on is greater reliability of
    EBT processing. States contract with a processor to carry out
    SNAP transactions. When an EBT processor experiences an outage,
    and the system goes down, we often do not know about it until
    the store has incurred multiple SNAP transaction declines.
    These outages can be very costly to us, and cause major
    disruptions for our customers in our stores. Currently there
    are only two providers effectively splitting all of the states.
    Two simply is not enough. We believe that more competition in
    the payments processors space, the higher the level of
    reliability we will see in this space.
        Thank you again for inviting me here today. Kroger is
    committed to serving all customers, including our customers who
    utilize SNAP. We stand ready to work with the Committee as it
    begins to contemplate the next farm bill to find additional
    improvements and future technology solutions to ensure that we
    can all meet our customers' needs. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Hanna follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Kathy Hanna, Senior Director Enterprise Payments
      and Store Support, The Kroger Co., Cincinnati, OH; on Behalf of Food
                              Marketing Institute
        Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and
    Members of the Committee. My name is Kathy Hanna and I am the Senior
    Director Enterprise Payments at the Kroger Company based in Cincinnati,
    Ohio. I am also past Chair of the Food Marketing Institute Electronic
    Payments Systems Committee and have watched the evolution of the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from paper coupons
    that were often traded in the store parking lot, to a patchwork
    regional system with differing administrative requirements, and then
    finally a nationwide electronic system that has significantly improved
    efficiencies and reduced the opportunity for fraud and error.
        Kroger is the largest traditional grocer in the United States with
    nearly two dozen banners, all of which share the same belief in
    building strong local ties and brand loyalty with our customers. Every
    day, the Kroger Family of Companies makes a difference in the lives of
    8\1/2\ million customers and 431,000 associates who shop or serve in
    2,778 retail food stores under a variety of local banner names in 35
    states and the District of Columbia. At Kroger, we are interested in
    improving the health of all of our shoppers. More and more shoppers see
    the supermarket as a health or wellness destination. At Kroger, we
    currently have 2,231 pharmacies and operate 190 in store clinics. We
    employ dietitians and nutritionists to assist our shoppers in making
    healthy choices. Additionally, we employ chefs that hold cooking
    demonstrations, and provide recipe ideas for families shopping on a
    budget, or with specific dietary needs. These are benefits and services
    Kroger offers to all of our customers, regardless of how they are
    paying for their groceries.
        In recent years, FNS has looked for new ways to incentivize
    healthier eating by SNAP customers and the Agency has been willing to
    grant waivers allowing grocers to directly incentivize SNAP shoppers.
    Kroger has recently partnered with AARP who received a Food Insecurity
    Nutrition Incentive grant from the USDA. This partnership allows us to
    incentivize SNAP customers to purchase more fresh fruits and vegetables
    in our stores. Creative incentives such as this are a win-win for the
    grocery industry and our customers.
        We know our SNAP shoppers, like any shopper on a budget, is looking
    to maximize and stretch their spending power.
    Benefits of a Nationwide, Interoperable EBT System
        I am honored to be here today to share Kroger's experience as a
    private partner with the government as the point of redemption for
    millions of SNAP recipients every month. When I first came to Kroger
    and worked in the stores, customers redeemed paper Food Stamp coupons
    torn out of books distributed monthly for food products in our stores.
    While Food Stamps provided a necessary benefit for Americans most in
    need, redeeming the stamps at the check-out was a very slow and tedious
    process subject to human error. The Personal Responsibility and Work
    Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 committed to improving the paper
    system by mandating that Food Stamp benefits move to an Electronic
    Benefits Transfer (EBT) system by October 1, 2002. The system was
    designed to mirror the commercially available debit card system and
    Congress required that all EBT cards require a Personal Identification
    Number, or PIN, in order to be used. A PIN ensures that the customer
    presenting the card is an authorized user, so if the card were lost or
    stolen, it would have no benefit to whoever has it. It also allows the
    transaction to run on commercial rails to be as efficient and
    inexpensive as possible.
        Migrating to EBT was a huge undertaking that required cooperation
    among all of the various Federal Government and state government,
    retailer, and nonprofit and stakeholders. Kroger and all grocers were
    committed to the move to EBT and invested heavily in its success as we
    knew it would bring efficiencies into SNAP, reduce our cost of
    accepting the benefits and reduce the human error rate and the fraud
    rate by allowing states to share redemption information. At the onset,
    the system was not nationwide or ubiquitous with alliances of states
    popping up in various regions of the country under names such as SAS,
    the Southern Alliance of States, the Northeast Alliance of States and
    freestanding programs like in my home state of Ohio. Electronic was
    good, but it was clear that a nationwide, interoperable system would be
    much better. Then-House Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee Chairman Bob
    Goodlatte introduced legislation to move us to the nationwide,
    interoperable system we have today. Today, we enjoy a SNAP redemption
    system in all of our stores that is ubiquitous, quick, inexpensive to
    accept and seamless amongst the states.
        According to our partners at the Food Marketing Institute, about
    nine percent of grocery sales industry-wide are SNAP. That number was
    higher directly following the severe economic downturn in 2008 and
    2009. Even then, with a larger population shopping with SNAP EBT cards,
    we did not see a slowdown in checkout lines or an increased error rate.
    The efficiency, ubiquity, low error rate and ability to handle volume
    increases can all be directly contributed to the streamlined EBT
    system. These transactions only take a matter of seconds. At Kroger,
    our point of sale system is integrated to automatically prohibit SNAP
    benefits from being used to purchase non-allowable items, such as
    toilet paper or alcohol. This efficiency is further enhanced by the
    fact that the rules are uniform across the country, so we do not have
    to individually program EBT restrictions, requirements or allowances by
    state. Not only is this ubiquity essential on our programming side, it
    is key for our shoppers who rely on SNAP to have the same set of rules
    regardless of where they redeem their benefits.
        Following major catastrophic events, such as Hurricane Katrina, we
    often seen a massive and temporary migration of people. In the
    Hurricane Katrina case, we saw families from Louisiana flee to Texas,
    Tennessee and Arkansas for significant periods of time. SNAP's
    transferability in those cases is essential. A family's SNAP benefits
    may be been issued in Louisiana but if they were temporarily staying
    with family in Arkansas, their SNAP benefits would work there without
    any challenges. SNAP portability is not just for major catastrophe such
    as this. I live in Cincinnati, right on the Ohio, Kentucky border.
    Every day thousands of people travel between those two states to go to
    work or shop. A SNAP recipient may want to cross into Kentucky from
    Ohio to shop at a store that is running a sale, or is closer to their
    job. The ability to redeem benefits with the same rules in multiple
    states is a very important efficiency that we enjoy in SNAP and often
    wish for in other government benefit programs. For instance, in the
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants & Children,
    or WIC, mothers cannot use their benefits in other states. The food
    packages allowed in one state often differ greatly from a neighboring
    state, and many states are still using legacy paper checks, while
    others have moved to EBT. However, in WIC EBT, the technology amongst
    the states varies where some use the traditional ``magnetic''
    technology and others use what is called a ``smart card.'' Because of
    these differences, WIC lacks the ubiquity that we enjoy in SNAP--and in
    turn is a very expensive transaction we run in the store and one of the
    most complicated.
        While SNAP-EBT has been incredibly successful making SNAP more
    efficient, we are now starting to look to the future of EBT. SNAP EBT
    relies on almost fifty year old magnetic stripe technology. This legacy
    technology is currently being replaced here in the United States with
    ``chip cards'' in the credit and debit card markets. While current SNAP
    transactions are still more secure than a chip card without a PIN, we
    know that the days of magnetic-stripe cards are numbered. Eventually,
    point of sale readers will move away from magnetic stripe, and we
    should start thinking now about what the next generation of EBT should
    look like. The current chip card technology we are rolling out here in
    the United States is twenty year old technology--far from cutting edge.
    The 2014 Farm Bill directed FNS to pilot online SNAP, which is a great
    step toward looking at the future. However, we need to look beyond
    online, and whether there is a place for EBT as a mobile payment as
    more people have access to smart phones. Or are there other solutions
    that would best serve our SNAP clients and maintain the efficiencies
    and ubiquity of SNAP?
    Expanding SNAP Benefits Days of Distribution To More Evenly Allocate
            Labor and Enhance Fresh Product Availability
        One area where states vary widely is how many days a month they
    distribute benefits. If a state only distributes benefits 1 to 3 days a
    month, it can create several operational challenges for retailers. This
    was particularly evident during the upswing in participation in 2008
    and 2009.
        First, it is important to clarify a bit on SNAP recipient
    concentration. At the end of 2015, about fourteen percent of Americans
    were receiving SNAP benefits. However, that does not reflect fourteen
    percent of the shoppers in every store. As you know, poverty and food
    insecurity tends to be higher concentrated in some communities. We have
    many stores across the country that have a very low SNAP population and
    we have others with SNAP penetrations significantly higher than 14%.
        The grocery industry is a very high volume business; we sell
    millions of food items every day. Our shelves are constantly being
    restocked, and we work very hard to keep checkout lines short and
    moving quickly. Serving large populations of customers on 1 or 2 days
    each month raises significant challenges, from keeping our shelves
    stocked and checkout lines moving to scheduling associates.
        We appreciated the Agriculture Committee including language in the
    2014 Farm Bill encouraging states to spread days of benefit
    distribution throughout the month and we will continue to work with
    states that currently do not to expand the days of distribution.
        Another option to consider is staggering SNAP benefits twice a
    month rather than once. Currently, SNAP recipient benefits are loaded
    once a month.
        I have attached a helpful chart that shows when each state
    currently distributes benefits to the end of my testimony.
    Relationship with FNS
        As the private partner serving the SNAP customer, it is essential
    the grocers have a close working relationship with USDA's Food and
    Nutrition Service (FNS). This was incredibly essential as we migrated
    to EBT for weather and or other disruptions because each of our 3,600
    stores was required to work directly with their state agency. Those
    important relationships continue today.
        FNS has been a strong partner with the industry and is willing to
    consider our input during rulemaking and other activities. Currently,
    we are working with FNS implementing provisions from the 2014 Farm
    Bill. The Agency's proposed rule ``Enhancing Retailer Standards in the
    Supplemental Nutrition Program (SNAP)'' rule is open for public
    comment. The proposed rule codifies the farm bill language that
    increased the number and variety of staple foods a retailer must stock
    in order to be considered for a SNAP license. We worked with the
    Agriculture Committee as they drafted the language to find a workable
    compromise for all stakeholders. However, the proposed rule goes beyond
    that statutory direction and proposes to change both the definition of
    a ``retail food store'' and what qualifies as a ``staple food.'' One
    unintended consequence of this could be eliminating the convenience
    store option. In addition to our supermarket locations, Kroger operates
    784 convenience stores in the U.S. We strive to offer nutritious
    options for SNAP customers in those locations as well. In many
    communities, convenience stores are among the first and most frequently
    visited retail food option for customers.
        Kroger has been a longtime SNAP retailer and believes that SNAP
    shoppers should have a wide variety of foods to choose from. We
    appreciate the Agency's interest in ensuring retailer integrity in the
    program. We hope to work with the Agency to ensure the proposed rule
    does not have any unintended consequences and will work to further the
    goal of ensuring that only legitimate food retailers are licenses to
    accept SNAP.
        Another area we are focused on is state-contracted EBT processors.
    As part of the SNAP transaction, a state will contract with a processor
    to actually carry out that transaction. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer
    providers have contracted in that space, and we are now down to only
    two providers effectively splitting the state contracts between them.
    We need more competition in this space, with more than two processors
    bidding on these contracts. Last year, FNS released a request for
    information asking stakeholders for input on how to attract more
    players into the space. Attached to my testimony are the comments
    submitted by FMI.
        In addition, more processor providers would help ensure EBT
    reliability. When an EBT processor experiences an outage and the system
    goes down, we often do not know about it in the store until multiple
    SNAP transactions are declined. These outages can cause major
    disruptions in our stores. In addition to understandably upset
    shoppers, we see our lanes slow down and unpaid for baskets of
    groceries left behind. All of this can be very costly for our stores,
    and disrupt all of our shoppers, not only SNAP shoppers. We believe
    that the more competition in the payment processor space, the higher
    the level of reliability we will see from processors.
        On a similar note, we often rely on and work with FNS to keep us
    informed if a processor or a state is scheduling any kind of
    maintenance on their EBT systems that could cause disruptions in
    stores. Best practices dictate that any kind of maintenance, upgrade or
    change should happen at the slowest shopping times, such as on a Sunday
    at midnight. We rely on getting notices from FNS, the state or our
    processors when there is scheduled maintenance so we are prepared if
    there is a disruption. At times, vendors may schedule something during
    a busier time for us. We have worked with FNS to address these
    proposals and encourage them to move the maintenance to a more
    agreeable time.
    Conclusion
        Thank you again for inviting me here today. I hope my remarks have
    made it clear that Kroger is committed to serving all customers,
    including our customers who utilize SNAP. We are always looking for
    opportunities to improve our operations and our customers' shopping
    experience. SNAP EBT has been a great success, bringing efficiencies,
    ubiquity and reliability to a program that so many Americans rely on to
    feed their families. As Congress looks toward the next farm bill, we
    hope the Committee will consider these successes and efficiencies as
    they debate changes to the program. We stand ready to work with the
    Committee to find additional improvements and future technology
    solutions to ensure we can meet all of our customers' needs.
                                  Attachment 1

              State-by-State Monthly SNAP Benefit Issuance Schedule
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                 Day(s) of SNAP Benefit Distribution
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama                         Previously, when a person was accepted
                                     into the SNAP program they were issued
                                     a case number. From this case number an
                                     issuance date was determined. This date
                                     ranged from the 4th of the month to the
                                     18th. The monthly issuance was
                                     transferred to the card on the first of
                                     the month, but not made available to
                                     the person until the issuance date. Any
                                     leftover balance carried on the card at
                                     the end of the month is rolled over to
                                     the following month.
                                    In August 2013, the state expanded their
                                     distribution dates, moving from the 4th
                                     to the 18th of the month to the 4th
                                     through the 23rd of the month. To
                                     assist in the transition, recipients
                                     received \1/2\ of their benefit on
                                     their original date and \1/2\ on their
                                     new date in the month of August to
                                     transition.
    Alaska **                       The main SNAP issuance is all on the
                                     first day of the month. Smaller
                                     supplemental issuances for new
                                     applicants and late re-certifications
                                     occur daily throughout the month.
    Arizona                         SNAP benefits are distributed over the
                                     first 13 days of the month by the first
                                     letter of the recipients' last name.
                                     For example: last names that begin with
                                     A or B are distributed on the first day
                                     of the month; 2nd day of the month: C
                                     and D; etc. (Cash is distributed on the
                                     first day of the month for all.)
    Arkansas                        Arkansans receive their benefits on
                                     these 8 days: 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th,
                                     11th, 12th or 13th of each month, based
                                     on the last number of their social
                                     security number.
    California                      California is different in that each
                                     county distributes SNAP to those who
                                     qualify. The payments go out to all
                                     those who qualify between the 1-10 of
                                     the month. Others (i.e., new
                                     applicants) get paid throughout the
                                     month depending on when they were
                                     accepted.
    Colorado                        Food Stamp benefits are distributed on
                                     the first 10 days of the month by the
                                     recipient's last digit of their social
                                     security number.
    Connecticut                     SNAP benefits and cash are distributed
                                     on the first 3 days of the month, by
                                     the first letter of the recipient's
                                     last name. (A-F are available on the
                                     first; G-N on the second and O-Z are
                                     distributed on the third day of the
                                     month.)
    Delaware                        Benefits are made available over 23
                                     days, beginning with the 2nd day of
                                     every month, based on the first letter
                                     of the client's last name.
    Florida                         All SNAP recipients moved from a 15 day
                                     distribution to a 28 day distribution
                                     in April 2016. In March 2016, to assist
                                     in the new transition, benefits were
                                     ``split.'' Recipients received the
                                     first \1/2\ of their benefits on their
                                     ``old'' date and received the second \1/
                                     2\ of their monthly benefits on what
                                     will be their ``new'' date going
                                     forward. The ACCESS Florida system
                                     assigns benefit availability dates
                                     based on the case number recipients
                                     received when they became eligible for
                                     the SNAP program.
    Georgia                         In September 2012, SNAP benefits in
                                     Georgia expanded from the 5th to the
                                     14th, and then finally to the current
                                     5th to 23rd of each month, distributed
                                     every other day.
    Hawaii                          Benefits are made available on the 3rd
                                     and the 5th of every month, based on
                                     the first letter of the client's last
                                     name.
    Idaho **                        Benefits are made available on the first
                                     day of every month. (Prior to August
                                     2009, benefits were distributed on 5
                                     consecutive days at the beginning of
                                     each month.) In 2014, H.B. 565 was
                                     enacted. The bill requires the state
                                     Department of Health and Welfare to
                                     issue SNAP benefits over the course of
                                     10 consecutive days within a month.
                                     Bonus money received from USDA will pay
                                     for the cost of the change.
                                    Starting July 1, 2016, benefits will be
                                     distributed over the first 10 days of
                                     each month based on the last number of
                                     the birth year of the recipient; for
                                     example, a birthday of 8/25/64 would
                                     receive benefits on the 4th day of each
                                     month. In depth communications to
                                     recipients and stakeholders began in
                                     April 2016.
    Illinois                        SNAP benefits are made available on
                                     these 12 days of the month: 1st, 3rd,
                                     4th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 17th,
                                     19th, 21st, and 23rd of every month,
                                     based on a combination of the type of
                                     case and the case name.
    Indiana                         On January 1, 2014, the state
                                     implemented an expanded schedule for
                                     the distribution of benefits during the
                                     fifth through the twenty-third day of
                                     each month, to be issued every-other-
                                     day, based on the first letter of the
                                     recipient's last name. For example: A
                                     or B = benefits available on the 5th;
                                     first Letter of the Last Name is: C or
                                     D = benefits available on the 7th.
                                     Previously, benefits were made
                                     available on the first 10 calendar days
                                     each month. (TANF is issued on the
                                     first of the month.)
    Iowa                            Benefits are made available over the
                                     first 10 calendar days of every month,
                                     based on the first letter of the
                                     client's last name.
    Kansas                          Benefits are made available over the
                                     first 10 calendar days of every month,
                                     based on the first letter of the
                                     client's last name.
    Kentucky                        Benefits are made available over the
                                     first 19 calendar days of every month,
                                     based on the last digit of the client's
                                     case number. This was recently expanded
                                     from the previous 10 day distribution.
    Louisiana                       Benefits are made available between the
                                     1st and the 14th of every month, based
                                     on the last digit of the client's SSN.
                                     (Elderly and disabled benefits are made
                                     available between the 1st and the 4th
                                     of every month.)
    Maine                           Benefits are available the 10th to the
                                     14th of every month based on the last
                                     digit of the recipient's birthday.
    Maryland                        In January 2016, the distribution
                                     schedule was changed. Benefits are now
                                     distributed from the 4th to the 27th of
                                     every month, based on the first three
                                     letters of the client's last name.
                                     Previously, benefits were distributed
                                     from the 6th through the 15th of the
                                     month. This was accomplished through a
                                     5 month phase-in.
    Massachusetts                   Distribution is based on the last digit
                                     of each recipient's social security
                                     number and distributed over the first
                                     14 days of the month.
    Michigan                        In January 2011, SNAP moved from a 7 day
                                     distribution to the current
                                     distribution, which is from the 3rd to
                                     the 21st, distributed every-other-day,
                                     based on the last digit of the head of
                                     household's recipient identification
                                     number. For example, clients' numbers
                                     ending with 0 will receive food
                                     benefits on the 3rd of the month;
                                     numbers ending with 1, food benefits
                                     will be available on the 5th of the
                                     month.
    Minnesota                       Benefits are staggered over 10 calendar
                                     days, beginning on the 4th through the
                                     13th of every month, without regard to
                                     weekends or holidays, based on the last
                                     digit of the client's case number.
    Mississippi                     Benefits are made available from the 5th
                                     to the 19th (15 days) of every month,
                                     based on the last two digits of the
                                     client's case number. For example, 00-
                                     06 are available the 5th, 07-13 are
                                     available the 6th.
    Missouri                        Benefits are made available over the
                                     first 22 days of every month, based on
                                     the client's birth month and last name.
    Montana                         Benefits are distributed over 5 days by
                                     the last number of the recipient's case
                                     number, from the 2nd to the 6th of
                                     every month.
    Nebraska                        Nebraska distributes food stamp benefits
                                     to individuals during the first 5
                                     calendar days of the month. The day of
                                     distribution is based on the last digit
                                     of the social security number.
    Nevada **                       In Nevada, food stamp benefits are
                                     issued on the first day of each month.
    New Hampshire **                New Hampshire benefits are available on
                                     the 5th of every month.
    New Jersey                      The monthly SNAP allotment is available
                                     over the first 5 days of the month. The
                                     day is based on the number in the 7th
                                     position of their case number. Some of
                                     the cases still receive their benefits
                                     based on the assignment at the time the
                                     county was converted to EBT. In Warren
                                     County, all benefits are made available
                                     on the 1st of the month.
    New Mexico                      Benefits are made available over 20 days
                                     every month, based on the last two
                                     digits of the SSN.
    New York                        The process is twofold as follows: in
                                     New York City, recipients receive their
                                     SNAP benefits within the first 13
                                     business days of the month, according
                                     to the last digit of their case number,
                                     not including Sundays or holidays. The
                                     actual dates change from one month to
                                     the next, so NYC publishes a 6 month
                                     schedule showing the exact availability
                                     dates. The remainder of New York State:
                                     recipients receive their benefits
                                     within the first 9 days of the month,
                                     also according to the last digit of
                                     their case number, including Sundays
                                     and holidays.
    North Carolina                  Effective July 2011, the state expanded
                                     its 10 day distribution schedule and
                                     are now available from the 3rd to the
                                     21st of every month, based on the last
                                     digit of the primary cardholder's
                                     Social Security Number.
    North Dakota **                 Benefits are made available on the first
                                     day of every month.
    Ohio                            In April 2014, Ohio expanded its SNAP
                                     distribution from the first 10 days of
                                     the month to the first 20 days of the
                                     month, staggered every 2 days. This
                                     only affected SNAP recipients who moved
                                     from one county to another; recipients
                                     who experienced a 1 day or more break
                                     in eligibility was because of a failure
                                     to take a required action; and, all new
                                     recipients. Recipients who were on SNAP
                                     before April 2014 did not see a change.
    Oklahoma                        Benefits are made available from the 1st
                                     to the 10th of every month, based on
                                     the last digit of the client's SNAP
                                     case number.
    Oregon                          SNAP is distributed on the first 9 days
                                     of the month as such: social security
                                     numbers ending with ``0'' or ``1''
                                     distribute on the 1st day of the month,
                                     numbers ending with a ``2'' are
                                     distributed on the 2nd day of the month
                                     and so on.
    Pennsylvania                    Benefits are made available over the
                                     first 10 business days of every month
                                     based on the last digit of the client's
                                     case number.
    Rhode Island **                 Benefits are made available on the first
                                     day of every month.
    South Carolina                  In 2012, South Carolina expanded from a
                                     9 day to a 20 day issuance. Current
                                     recipients stayed within the 9 day
                                     distribution, but all new recipients
                                     were given a date that expanded into
                                     the 20 days.
    South Dakota **                 Benefits are made available on the 10th
                                     day of every month.
    Tennessee                       In October 2012, Tennessee expanded
                                     distribution from 10 to 20 days.
    Texas                           Benefits are made available over the
                                     first 15 days of the month, based on
                                     the last digit of the client's SNAP
                                     case number.
    Utah                            Benefits are made available on the 5th,
                                     11th, or 15th of every month, based on
                                     the first letter of the client's last
                                     name: A-G available on the 5th; H-O
                                     available on the 11th; P-Z available on
                                     the 15th.
    Vermont **                      Vermont benefits are available on the
                                     first of every month.
    Virginia                        Benefits are made available from the 1st
                                     to the 9th of every month, based on the
                                     last digits of the client's case
                                     number.
    Washington                      Benefits are staggered over the first 10
                                     days of the month based on the last
                                     digit of the households' assistance
                                     unit number. Weekends and holidays do
                                     not affect the schedule.
    West Virginia                   Benefits are made available over the
                                     first 9 days of every month, based on
                                     the first letter of the client's last
                                     name.
    Wisconsin                       Benefits are made available over the
                                     first 15 days of every month, based on
                                     the eighth digit of the client's SSN.
    Wyoming                         SNAP is distributed on the first 4 days
                                     of the month as such: last names
                                     beginning with ``A'' to ``D''
                                     distribute on the first day; last names
                                     beginning with ``E'' to ``K'' on the
                                     2nd day; ``L'' to ``R'' on the third
                                     and ``S'' to ``Z'' on the fourth.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Current as of May 2016; Food Marketing Institute.
    Notes:

      b ** States with asterisks are those that only distribute benefits on
      1 day a month. There
         are eight that still do so, although Idaho will soon be expanding.
      b There is no limit on the number of days for stagger. The only
      condition in regulation is
         that no single household's issuance should exceed 40 days between
      issuances.
      b Currently, benefit recipients may only be issued their benefits one
      time a month, or within
         40 days.

                                  Attachment 2
    September 8, 2014

      Audrey Rowe,
      Administrator,
      Food and Nutrition Service,
      Department of Agriculture,
      Alexandria, VA

    Docket No: FNS-2014-0030; Federal Register 45175

    RE: Request for Information: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
                (SNAP); Retailer Transaction Data

        Dear Administrator Rowe:

        On Monday, August 4, 2014, the United States Department of
    Agriculture (``USDA''), Food and Nutrition Service (``FNS'') published
    a Request for Information (``RFI''): Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program (``SNAP'' or ``the Program''); Retailer Transaction Data in the
    Federal Register.\1\ The RFI is being issued in response to a decision
    by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,\2\ which held that
    annual SNAP retailer redemption data did not fall within the
    withholding exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA'')
    and therefore must be disclosed unless it qualifies for another FOIA
    exception. FNS recognizes that despite the court's decision the agency
    must also consider whether this redemption data constitutes
    confidential business information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 79 Fed. Reg. 45175 (August 4, 2014).
        \2\ Argus Leader Media v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 740 F.3d
    1172 (8th Cir. 2014).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FMI appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important
    matter.
        FMI proudly advocates on behalf of the food retail industry. FMI's
    U.S. members operate nearly 40,000 retail food stores and 25,000
    pharmacies, representing a combined annual sales volume of almost $770
    billion. Through programs in public affairs, food safety, research,
    education and industry relations, FMI offers resources and provides
    valuable benefits to more than 1,225 food retail and wholesale member
    companies in the United States and around the world. FMI membership
    covers the spectrum of diverse venues where food is sold, including
    single owner grocery stores, large multi-store supermarket chains and
    mixed retail stores. For more information, visit www.fmi.org and for
    information regarding the FMI foundation, visit www.fmifoundation.org.
    Background
        Food retailers who participate in SNAP are required to submit
    annual applications, which are administered by FNS through its
    nationwide network of field offices. Any retailer that would like to
    accept SNAP benefits (EBT) must hold a valid permit and be licensed to
    participate in the Program. The submission of information is a
    mandatory pre-requisite for participation in SNAP. In 1978, FNS
    published a final rule affirming that the information furnished by food
    retailers was to remain confidential as required by section 9(c) of the
    Food Stamp Act (``The Act''). On February 2011, Argus Leader, a South
    Dakota newspaper submitted a FOIA request for all SNAP authorized
    retailer redemption data from 2005-2010. Relying on the 1978 rule, FNS
    denied the FOIA request prompting Argus Leader to challenge FNS'
    interpretation of the Act in a lawsuit. FNS' position was initially
    upheld in the district court but was overturned by the Eighth Circuit
    on appeal. The Eighth Circuit held that the requested information did
    not fall within the withholding contemplated by Section 9(c) of the Act
    and therefore the requested information was not exempt from disclosure
    under Exemption 3. The court did not address whether the information
    would be exempt from disclosure under another provision of FOIA,
    specifically whether SNAP redemption data would constitute confidential
    business information under Exemption 4.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The SNAP Program Is a Crucial Safety Net for Low-Income Participants
        The supermarket industry, which FMI represents, is proud to be a
    private sector partner with Federal and state governments in an
    effective, efficient way to reduce hunger and improve access to healthy
    food for our nation's poor. Serving 14% of the population, the SNAP
    program provides critical assistance to over 45 million people, almost
    \1/2\ of whom are children.\4\ FMI members provide innumerable goods
    and services under SNAP and the government relies heavily on retailers
    accepting SNAP benefits to provide food for low-income recipients
    across the country. A large number of FMI members were SNAP-authorized
    retailers from 2005 through 2010 and continue to support the program.
    In Fiscal Year 2013, supermarkets and superstores redeemed a
    significant portion of all SNAP benefits.\5\ FNS reports that in 2013,
    almost $76 billion in client benefits were redeemed in the 252,962
    participating stores, farmers markets, and others authorized retailers
    who accept SNAP. FMI members are an integral part of SNAP-authorized
    retailers, without whom the program would not run as effectively.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ ``Putting Healthy Food Within Reach'' USDA SNAP Report 2013.
        \5\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SNAP Retailer Redemption Data Should Not Be Disclosed Under FOIA
            Exemption 4
        The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides that any person has
    a right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to Federal agency
    records, except to the extent that such are protected from public
    disclosure by one of the nine exemptions prescribed in the Act.
    Exemption 4 under FOIA protects two distinct categories of information
    in Federal agency records: ``trade secrets and commercial or financial
    information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or
    confidential.'' \6\ In reviewing the legislative history of Exemption
    4, it is clear that the objective is to prohibit the public disclosure
    of confidential business information that would damage or disrupt a
    particular company or industry. Exemption 4 serves two very important
    interests: that of the government in efficient operation and the
    protection for those persons who submit financial or commercial data to
    government agencies from the competitive disadvantages which would
    result from its publication.\7\ ``The exemption affords protection to
    those submitters who are required to furnish financial information to
    the government by safeguarding them from the competitive disadvantages
    that could result from disclosure.'' \8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
        \7\ Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770,
    162 U.S. App. D.C. 223 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
        \8\ See Attorney General's Memorandum for Heads of All Federal
    Departments and Agencies Regarding the Freedom of Information Act (Oct.
    12, 2001), reprinted in FOIA Post (posted 10/15/01) (recognizing
    fundamental societal value of ``protecting sensitive business
    information'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There was vast discussion about the importance of protecting this
    type of information during the 1963 FOIA hearings. For example, during
    hearings on S. 1666,5 \9\ a representative from the treasury stated
    that ``we can see no reason for changing the ground rules of American
    business so that any person can force the government to reveal
    information which relates to the business activities of his
    competitor.'' A member of the subcommittee which conducted the hearings
    raised the issue again with respect to Small Business Administration
    loan applications: ``I am thinking of a situation, for example, where
    the company couldn't qualify for funds, and they have exposed their
    predicament to the world and it might give competitors unfair advantage
    to know their weak condition at that time. I wonder if there might be
    some cases where it might be in the public interest if all the facts
    about a company were not made public.'' \10\ In light of the context in
    which the exemption was drafted, it is clear that individual SNAP
    retailer redemption data is the precise type of highly sensitive sales
    and profit data the exemption seeks to protect.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ The text of this bill, as introduced, appears in Hearings on S.
    1666 Before the Subcomm. on Administrative Practice and Procedure of
    the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 1-2 (1964)
    (hereafter, 1963 Hearings).
        \10\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SNAP Redemption Data Is Commercial Information Obtained from a Person
        If information relates to business or trade, courts have little
    difficulty in considering it ``commercial or financial.'' \11\ The
    Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has firmly held
    that these terms should be given their ``ordinary meanings'' and has
    specifically rejected the argument that the term ``commercial'' be
    confined to records that ``reveal basic commercial operations,''
    holding instead that records are commercial so long as the submitter
    has a ``commercial interest'' in them.\12\ Individual SNAP redemption
    data constitutes commercial information because retailers have a
    commercial or financial interest in sales information which directly
    relates to their business.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ See, e.g., Dow Jones Co. v. FERC, 219 F.R.D. 167, 176 (C.D.
    Cal. 2002) (information relating ``to business decisions and practices
    regarding the sale of power, and the operation and maintenance'' of
    generators (quoting agency declaration).
        \12\ Pub. Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280, 1290
    (D.C. Cir. 1983).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For purposes of Exemption 4, the term ``person'' refers to
    individuals as well as to a wide range of entities, including
    corporations and state governments, who provide information to the
    government. Courts have further expanded the reach of Exemption 4 to
    explain that it is ``sufficiently broad to encompass financial and
    commercial information concerning a third party'' and protection is
    therefore available regardless of whether the information pertains
    directly to the commercial interests of the party that provided it--as
    is typically the case--or pertains to the commercial interests of
    another.\13\ Participating SNAP retailers clearly fall within the
    definition of a person, which includes individuals and corporations who
    provide confidential information to the government in applications and
    annual SNAP redemption data. Thus, whether or not individual store SNAP
    redemption data is submitted directly by a retailer or is done through
    third-party EBT transactions, retailers would still be considered a
    person for purposes of Exemption 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770,
    162 U.S. App. D.C. 223 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Individual Store SNAP Retail Redemption Data Is Commercial Information
        The second requirement under Exemption 4 requires the information
    submitted to be of a commercial nature. Under this prong, the person
    submitting the information to the government must show that they
    actually face competition. The food retail industry is a fiercely
    competitive market and supermarkets face meaningful day-to-day
    competition with their competitors who offer similar goods and services
    both within and outside certain geographical areas. Current profit
    margins in the industry are approximately one percent,\14\ on average,
    and individual retailers are constantly trying to establish methods for
    increasing volume and sales to remain competitive. Intense competition
    over the past 2 decades in the U.S. food marketing system has spurred
    innovations and cost efficiencies.\15\ Consumers have access to a wider
    range of products, services, and store formats that appeal to their
    preferences for convenience and quality.\16\ The food retail industry
    is changing and has seen a recent shift from the traditional grocery
    store to other food retail formats. ``In response to an eroding market
    share, traditional grocers are expanding the number and types of
    product offerings, designing new store formats, and using innovative
    in-store technologies.'' \17\ ``Globalization has meant that domestic
    retailers face increasing competition from foreign retailers operating
    in the United States. As food companies strive to maintain market share
    in the domestic food economy, largely limited by population growth,
    consumers are the beneficiaries of this heightened competition through
    diverse product offerings, new and improved services, and competitive
    prices.'' \18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Food Retailing Industry Speaks, Food Marketing Institute,
    2013.
        \15\ Twenty Years of Competition Reshape the U.S. Food Marketing
    System, Stephen Martinez and Philip Kaufman, United State Department of
    Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April 1, 2008.
        \16\ Id.
        \17\ Id.
        \18\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Individual Store SNAP Retail Redemption Data Constitutes Confidential
            Business Information
        The test for determining whether information is confidential has
    been adopted by the courts and is referred to as the National Parks
    test.\19\ Information is ``confidential'' under this prong if
    disclosure ``is likely . . . to cause substantial harm to the
    competitive position of the person from whom the information was
    obtained.'' \20\ Actual competitive harm need not be demonstrated for
    purposes of the competitive harm prong; rather, the evidence of
    ``actual competition and a likelihood of substantial competitive
    injury'' is all that need be shown.\21\ As stated above, food retailers
    face significant competition with very slim margins. FMI believes that
    individual store SNAP redemption data constitutes confidential business
    information, which, if disclosed, would result in significant
    competitive harm to the food retail industry and should therefore be
    withheld under Exemption 4 of FOIA. Numerous types of competitive
    injury have been identified by the courts as properly cognizable under
    the competitive harm prong, including the harms generally caused by
    disclosure of: ``(1) detailed financial information, such as a
    company's assets, liabilities, and net worth; \22\ (2) a company's
    actual costs, break-even calculations, profits and profit rates; (3)
    data describing a company's workforce that would reveal labor costs,
    profit margins, and competitive vulnerability; \23\ (4) a company's
    selling prices, purchase activity and freight charges; and (5) \24\
    market share, type of product, and volume of sales.'' \25\ These last
    two competitive harms would clearly result from the required disclosure
    of store level SNAP redemption data.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770,
    162 U.S. App. D.C. 223 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
        \20\ Id.
        \21\ See generally Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Food and
    Drug Admin., 704 F.2d 1280, 1291 n.30 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
        \22\ See, e.g., Nat'l Parks, 547 F.2d at 684.
        \23\ See, e.g., Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Schlesinger, 392 F.
    Supp. 1246, 1249 (E.D.Va. 1974), aff'd, 542 F.2d 1190 (4th Cir. 1976).
        \24\ Lion Raisins, 354 F.3d at 1081.
        \25\ Department of Justice Guide to the Freedom of Information Act
    (2008).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The disclosure of individual store SNAP redemption data is
    proprietary information that could be used by supermarkets to analyze a
    competitor's current vulnerabilities, market share for SNAP
    participants and volume of sales that would result in significant harm
    to the competitive position of participating retailers. Disclosure
    would provide companies with valuable insights into the operational
    strengths and weaknesses of their competitors resulting in selective
    pricing, market concentration, expansion plans and possible take-over
    bids facilitated by knowledge of the financial information sought.
    Suppliers, contractors, labor unions and creditors too could use such
    information to bargain for higher prices, wages or interest rates,
    while the competitor's or suppliers unregulated information would not
    be similarly exposed.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770,
    162 U.S. App. D.C. 223 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FMI notes that the information sought by the Argus Leader is not of
    the type that is disclosed through any other required public filings.
    For example, public companies are only required to disclose total sales
    figures for the entire company, not store level information. 10Ks and
    other financial filings do not disclose individual store sales, traffic
    numbers or store transactional information. Further, independent and
    non-public food retailers do not have to disclose overall or individual
    store sales at all. Disclosing SNAP redemption data for a non-public
    company would result in a significant departure from current practice
    and would provide competitors access to valuable, confidential sales
    data giving competitors a direct avenue into a private retailer's
    earnings. FMI members are similarly concerned that if the type of
    proprietary information sought is disclosed for a public company
    immediately prior to a quarterly filing with the SEC, investors and the
    public alike will use the valuable information to predict a company's
    earnings resulting in market changes and fluctuation in stock price.
        Additionally, if individual SNAP data is disclosed, retailers will
    have prized information on redemption data geographically that could
    prompt and inform a competitor's expansion strategy into new markets
    with a large number of SNAP recipients. For example, if a retailer
    discovers that their competitor redeems 60% of the total SNAP benefits
    in a particular area they could develop targeted marketing and business
    strategies to increase market share and convert current SNAP
    recipients. Further, our members are concerned that disclosure of
    individual store SNAP redemption data could have a chilling effect on
    participation in the program by those most in need. In fact, some
    retailers indicate that the competitive harm caused by disclosure would
    lead to their departure from SNAP entirely. A large number of
    withdrawing SNAP retailers will ultimately result in diminished access
    for SNAP recipients and consolidation of participating stores.
    The Disclosure of Individual Retailer SNAP Redemption Data Would Be
            Duplicative and Impose Unnecessary Costs in Government
            Administration of the Program with Little Corresponding Benefit
            to the Public
        FMI urges FNS to consider the important role our members play in
    providing essential nutrition benefits to low-income populations.
    Public disclosure of individual retail SNAP redemption information
    would result in significant competitive harm to FMI members. It would
    create challenging and unnecessary burdens in administration of the
    program and a potential reduction in the number of recipients and
    participating retailers while providing no additional savings or value
    to the program.
        FMI does not believe that disclosure of redemption data at the
    individual store level would improve the administration or enforcement
    of SNAP requirements. In the Act, Congress specifically limits
    disclosure of information received from applicants and participating
    SNAP retailers. USDA already publishes a state-by-state breakdown on
    the amount of benefits and percentage of authorized firms under SNAP.
    Additionally, existing USDA data breaks down reimbursement data by
    retailer type on an annual basis. There are 25 firm types, with
    classifications differentiated by sales volume, ratio of food sales, or
    whether firms specialize in one staple food group. Reporting and
    disclosing store level data on a monthly basis would significantly
    burden the administration of SNAP and would be an unfortunate use of
    such limited resources in administration and enforcement of the
    program.
        Disclosure would create an unprecedented and unreasonable public
    information request in violation of long standing practices and
    criteria under FOIA that is certain to influence FOIA requests for
    years to come. FMI SNAP retailers are already required to meet
    stringent and comprehensive standards set by USDA to become authorized
    and therefore eligible to participate in the Program. Qualification is
    rigorous and requires significant documentation that includes
    verification of tax returns and tax filings. Tax filings and individual
    sales data information by definition are: ``(4) trade secrets and
    commercial or financial information obtained from a person and
    privileged or confidential;'' as expressly exempted from public request
    at FOIA.\27\ We respectfully submit that the USDA's current policy of
    protecting the confidentiality of proprietary retailer financial
    information be maintained and, if needed, strengthened to clarify its
    policy in light of the Argus Leader litigation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Similarly, FMI believes that Congress did not intend for SNAP
    redemption data to be public information under Section 9(c) of the Act.
    FMI agrees with FNS' interpretation and final rule codifying the
    interpretation that Section 9(c) prohibits the use or disclosure of
    ``information furnished by firms, . . . including their redemption of
    coupons . . . except for purposes directly connected with the
    administration and enforcement of the Food Stamp Act and it's
    corresponding regulations.'' \28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ 79 Fed. Reg. 45175.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Should Aggregated Annual SNAP Redemption Data at the Individual Store
            Level be Released for Transparency Purposes?
        Transparency and public accountability are of the utmost importance
    for retailers and our customers. FMI members are responding by
    providing with increased access to information on food, nutrition and
    the products that they carry--one example being the industry's
    voluntary Facts Up Front initiative to provide key information via
    icons on the front of packaging. Transparency that improves the
    efficiency of the program or the availability of important attributes
    of a product like nutrients or allergens may have value to customers
    and taxpayers. However, FMI does not see how disclosure of individual
    store SNAP redemption data will result in greater transparency in SNAP
    administration or greater value to customers, agencies or retailers. As
    stated above, the disclosure of the information sought will result in
    greater costs and challenges for administering states without a
    corresponding benefit to the public. SNAP redemption data is already
    publicly available by retail sector, state and locality and the
    competitive harm that would result from disclosure strongly outweighs
    the potential for minimal benefit to the petitioner for use in a
    published story.
        FMI appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important
    matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me at sbarnes@fmi.org or
    (202) 220-0614 if you have any questions.
                Sincerely,

    Stephanie Barnes,
    Regulatory Counsel.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Hanna. Mr. Wright, 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF JIMMY WRIGHT, OWNER, WRIGHT'S MARKET, OPELIKA, AL;
                     ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL GROCERS
                              ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Wright. Thank you, Congressman Rogers, for the kind
    introduction, and good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Peterson, and Members of the Committee. My name is Jimmy
    Wright, and I am the owner of Wright's Market in Opelika,
    Alabama. It is an honor and privilege to be here with you
    today. I have been asked to testify today by the National
    Grocers Association on behalf of the independent supermarket
    community. The National Grocers Association is the national
    trade association representing the retailers and wholesalers
    that comprise the independent sector of the supermarket
    industry, including single full service supermarkets, such as
    Wright's Market, and multi-state regional chains. Wright's
    Market is a family-owned business. We are a full service,
    22,000\2\ supermarket, and have accepted SNAP as a form of
    tender essentially since the store opened. Six of our 30
    employees have worked at the store for over 20 years. We are
    very proud of our employees, and feel grateful that many chose
    to start and grow their careers at Wright's Market.
        Two years ago, in an effort to better serve our customers,
    we began a shuttle service we call Wright 2 You for those
    customers who are not able to get to the store due to the lack
    of transportation. In addition, as we speak, we are launching
    an online ordering and home delivery service for our customers.
    We want to help those where coming to the grocery store is no
    longer an option. In the future I hope to work to expand the
    online delivery service to the rural areas in the counties
    surrounding my store, and we need the support of USDA to help
    facilitate that work, especially in the area of technology. As
    Congressman Rogers mentioned, I am proud to work with Focused
    Community Strategies out of Atlanta, and in 2015 I worked with
    them to open the Carver Neighborhood Market in an area that was
    previously a food desert. Prior to the opening of Carver, the
    nearest supermarket was 3 miles away, a 3 hour round trip bus
    ride for many of the residents of the neighborhood.
        Thirty-seven percent of the retail sales at Wright's
    Market, and 25 percent of retail sales at Carver Neighborhood
    Market, are generated by customers using SNAP benefits. I
    believe it is an important program that helps families. Many
    SNAP customers in my store, especially elderly, struggle with
    the realization that they may need help, and enroll in the
    program. At Wright's Market we work to serve the SNAP customer
    with the same level of service and respect as we do anyone
    else. I know they do the same at Carver.
        Carver Neighborhood Market had a difficult time getting
    their SNAP license. To me, this represents a problem with how
    retailer applications are processed. This is a store that is
    servicing an economically depressed area in a food desert.
    Representatives from Carver had their SNAP application pending
    for 2 months without response from the USDA. NGA got involved
    in the process, and was able to help get the application
    approved after 3 additional weeks of processing time. I
    understand and appreciate that USDA does not, and should not,
    grant SNAP license to all businesses that request them, but I
    do believe that almost a 3 month wait time for approval,
    especially for a store opening in a food desert, is too long. I
    would encourage USDA to consider having a different application
    process for applicants moving to a food desert in order to
    expedite the process.
        It is also important for USDA to become more efficient in
    processing the applications for supermarket owners in good
    standing with the program who are opening additional store
    locations. NGA appreciates the work USDA is currently
    undertaking to make this process more efficient for those
    operators with over ten stores. I would ask them to also
    prioritize streamlining the process for those operators in good
    standing who own less than ten stores. In regards to the
    administration of the SNAP Program, in 2013 Alabama moved to a
    staggered SNAP benefit scheduled. Benefits were staggered over
    20 days of the month, rather than the previous 14 day period.
    Since these benefits were staggered, we can expect steady
    customer traffic throughout the month. Prior to this change, it
    was a challenge to keep items in stock when all recipients
    received their benefits on a shorter cycle.
        In the future, I would also ask that there be a focus on
    the elderly as it relates to SNAP benefits. As the generation
    of baby boomers becomes a larger percentage of our nation's
    elderly population, I am concerned for many of them in regards
    to the increasing cost of medicine, and having enough money for
    food. My wife is a physician, and she sees patients having to
    make a choice between food and medicine, as they cannot afford
    both. These citizens come from a generation where you did not
    ask for help. I would ask you all to look for a way to reach
    out to these people. Find a way to make the SNAP application
    process one that helps us take care of the people who have
    taken care of us. The SNAP Program, in my opinion, is one of
    the most important and efficient programs our nation offers. In
    our own business, it creates jobs. In our community, it helps
    those who are in need.
        In closing, I would encourage any of you who have questions
    about SNAP at the retailer level to visit an independent
    supermarket in your district. There are independent operators
    in every Congressional district, and visiting a store is a
    wonderful way to learn more about how the program works from a
    retailer perspective. I am grateful for the opportunity to
    testify here today, and I appreciate your oversight of the
    program, your service, and your leadership to our nation.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Jimmy Wright, Owner, Wright's Market, Opelika,
                 AL; on Behalf of National Grocers Association
        Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of
    the Committee. My name is Jimmy Wright, and I am the owner of Wright's
    Market in Opelika, Alabama. It is an honor and a privilege to be here
    with you today.
        I have been asked to testify today by the National Grocers
    Association on behalf of the independent supermarket community. The
    National Grocers Association is the national trade association
    representing the retailers and wholesalers that comprise the
    independent sector of the supermarket industry, including single full
    service supermarkets such as Wright's Market, and multi-state regional
    chains. The independent supermarket industry is accountable for close
    to one percent of the nation's overall economy and responsible for
    generating $131 billion in sales, 944,000 jobs, $30 billion in wages,
    and $27 billion in taxes. Defined as a privately held, family owned, or
    employee owned business, independent supermarket operators run
    businesses of all formats and sizes, serving a wide range of customers
    in their local communities. Having often been in business for
    generations, independent grocers are dedicated to their customers,
    associates and communities.
        I have served as a member of the NGA Board of Directors since 2012.
    I also serve as the President of the Opelika Community Development
    Corporation, and have previously served on the Board of Directors for
    the Opelika Chamber of Commerce, East Alabama Services for the Elderly,
    and the Miracle League. My wife Susan, daughter Emily, and I are
    members of the First Baptist Church of Opelika.
        Wright's Market is a family owned business. My store originally
    opened as a small 2,100\2\ convenience store in 1973. I worked there
    as a student in high school, and purchased the store from my previous
    employer in 1997. My store has expanded over the years to its current
    size of 22,000\2\. We are a full service supermarket and have accepted
    SNAP as a form of tender essentially since the store opened. We have 32
    employees, 18 of which are full time. Six of our employees have worked
    at the store for over 20 years. We are very proud of our employees and
    feel grateful that many chose to start and grow their careers at
    Wright's Market. Our employees and our connection with the community
    make me proud to run this business. We regularly donate to community
    causes, not only financially, but also with time spent working with
    various organizations in our community to make Opelika a better city
    for all. Independent grocers are uniquely positioned to serve their
    communities, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to give back in
    many different ways to my hometown.
        Two years ago, in an effort to better serve our customers, we began
    a shuttle service we called ``Wright 2 U'' for those customers who were
    unable to get to the store due to lack of transportation. In addition,
    as we speak, we are launching an online ordering and home delivery
    service for our customers. We hope to use this program to reach those
    who are physically homebound. We want to help those where coming to the
    grocery store is no longer an option.
        In 2012, I formed a relationship with Focused Community Strategies
    (FCS), an Atlanta based nonprofit ministry that is working to
    revitalize a neighborhood in south Atlanta. In 2015, I worked with them
    to open the Carver Neighborhood Market in an area that was previously a
    food desert. FCS wanted to convert an old thrift store into a small
    grocery store. Prior to the opening of Carver Neighborhood Market, the
    nearest supermarket was 3 miles away. This short distance was often a 3
    hour round trip bus ride for many residents of the neighborhood. From
    the beginning, we knew we would struggle with supplying the store.
    Contracting with a traditional wholesaler wasn't going to be an option
    available to Carver since the projected sale volume of the store would
    be fairly low in comparison to a larger store, so I offered to serve as
    their supplier. I have one truck that travels between Opelika and
    Atlanta to deliver to Carver Market. With Wright's Market's buying
    volume, it allows Carver Market to offer products to the residents of
    the neighborhood at affordable prices. This helps solve the two biggest
    issues in the food deserts of America--accessibility and affordability.
        Thirty-seven point one percent of retail sales at Wright's Market
    and 25% of the retail sales at Carver Neighborhood Market are generated
    by customers using SNAP benefits. I believe it is an important program
    that helps families. From my perspective, for the most part, SNAP
    recipients are very efficient shoppers. They try to use the benefits
    allocated to them to purchase as much food as possible for their
    families. While we do hear stories about some who may take advantage of
    the program, that is, in our view, a very small portion of those who
    receive the benefits. Many SNAP customers in my store, especially the
    elderly, struggle with the realization that they need help and must
    enroll in the program. I believe that, overall, the program serves a
    great purpose for families, especially children and the elderly who are
    in need. At Wright's Market, we work to serve the SNAP customer with
    the same level of service and respect as we do anyone else. I know they
    do the same at Carver Neighborhood Market.
        Carver Neighborhood Market had a difficult time getting their SNAP
    license. To me, this represents a problem with how retailer
    applications are processed. This is a store that is servicing an
    economically depressed area in a food desert. Participation in the
    program was and is essential to Carver's success. Representatives from
    Carver had their SNAP application pending for 2 months without response
    from the USDA. NGA got involved in the process and was able to help get
    the application approved after about 3 additional weeks of processing
    time.
        I understand and appreciate that the USDA does not and should not
    grant SNAP licenses to all businesses that request them. But I do
    believe that an almost 3 month wait time for approval, especially for a
    store opening in a food desert, is too long. Carver was unable to open
    prior to receiving their license since so many members of the community
    they serve are SNAP recipients. I would encourage the USDA to consider
    having a different application process for applicants moving into a
    food desert in order to expedite that process. These business owners
    are working against many obstacles in order to open supermarkets in
    these under-serviced areas. I would like to see the USDA be a better
    partner in this regard.
        It is also important for the USDA to become more efficient in
    processing applications for supermarket owners in good standing with
    the program who are opening additional store locations. It seems
    inefficient to force those retailers who are in good standing to go
    through the same application process as those stores that are coming on
    the program for the first time. NGA has worked with stores that have
    been SNAP retailers for over 30 years without incident and still have
    to go through the same long application process when opening an
    additional location. NGA appreciates the work the USDA is currently
    undertaking to make this process more efficient for those operators
    with over ten stores, but would ask them to also prioritize
    streamlining this process for those operators in good standing who own
    less than ten stores. We would appreciate any improvements the USDA can
    make to ease this process in the future.
        With regards to the administration of the SNAP program, in 2013
    Alabama moved to a staggered SNAP benefit schedule. Benefits are
    staggered over 20 days of the month rather than the previous 14 day
    period. The first day benefits are issued is the 4th of each month and
    the last day is the 23rd. This has been a tremendously helpful change
    in policy for retailers. Since these benefits are staggered, we can
    expect steady customer traffic throughout the month. Prior to this
    change, it was a challenge to keep items in stock when all recipients
    received their benefits on a shorter cycle. I am appreciative that the
    Alabama Department of Human Resources has made this change.
        In addition, I can say that we did notice a decrease in
    participant's stories about people committing fraud in the program when
    it changed from paper stamps to an EBT card. We also saw a huge
    increase in efficiencies at the store level. I no longer have to have a
    member of our team stamp the paper vouchers and physically take them to
    the bank to be reimbursed for those purchases. Having the system
    automated and integrated with our other electronic payments has made
    all the difference in helping improve the program for the participant
    and the retailer partner. With that said, I also believe strongly that
    any and all fraud in the program should not be tolerated, on either the
    retailer or participant level, and should be pursued aggressively by
    the USDA.
        In the future, I hope to work to expand our online delivery service
    to the rural areas in the counties surrounding my store. Many of these
    areas are without access to fresh foods and I believe we can solve that
    issue by making regular deliveries into those areas. I would appreciate
    the support of the USDA to help facilitate that work, especially in the
    area of technology. We need to be able to accept and process SNAP
    benefit cards on-site at customers' homes or in a central delivery
    location.
        In the future, I would also ask that there is a focus on the
    elderly as it relates to SNAP benefits. As the generation of Baby
    Boomers becomes a larger percentage of our nation's elderly population,
    I am concerned for many of them in regards to the increasing cost of
    medicine and having enough money for food. As I work in our community,
    I meet many elderly people who are struggling financially. My wife is a
    physician and she sees patients having to make a choice between food
    and medicine, as they cannot afford both. These citizens come from a
    generation where you did not ask for help. Many of them struggle with
    the fact that they are not able to care for themselves. These people
    have worked hard all their lives, paid their taxes, built our
    communities, served our country, and now find themselves struggling for
    the basic necessities of life. I would ask you all to look for a way to
    reach out to these people. Find a way to make the SNAP application
    process one that helps us take care of the people who have taken care
    of us.
        The SNAP program, in my opinion, is one of the most important and
    efficient programs our nation offers. In our own business, it creates
    jobs. In our community, it helps those who are in need. I appreciate
    your oversight of the program and your service and leadership of our
    nation.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wright. Mr. Beech, 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS M. BEECH, J.D., LEGAL COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR
                    OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, CASEY'S
             GENERAL STORES, INC., ANKENY, IA; ON BEHALF OF
               NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES

        Mr. Beech. Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and
    Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me this
    opportunity to testify regarding the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program, or SNAP. My name is Doug Beech, and I am
    Legal Counsel and Director of Government Relations for Casey's
    General Stores. Headquartered in Iowa, Casey's has 1,931 stores
    spread throughout 14 midwestern states, and employs
    approximately 34,000 people. Casey's is a member of the
    National Association of Convenience Stores.
        Our stores are fixtures in local communities not only
    because of the products and services we provide, because of the
    employment opportunities we offer. Fifty-seven percent of our
    stores are located in towns of 5,000 people or less, so we
    serve rural America. Casey's is a proud participant of SNAP.
    Virtually all of our 1,931 stores participate in the program,
    and we process roughly 5.5 million SNAP transactions every
    year. Half of our stores are open 24 hours, 7 days a week so we
    can provide SNAP and non-SNAP customers with geographic
    convenience and extended hours in which to shop for food. In
    fact, approximately 220 of our stores are located in
    communities where we are the only business where SNAP
    recipients can redeem their benefits in the community, the only
    place they can get bread and milk.
        Unfortunately, on February 17, the Food and Nutrition
    Service proposed a new rule regarding SNAP retailer eligibility
    requirements that will push all of the Casey's stores, and tens
    of thousands of small retailers, out of SNAP. The proposed rule
    would change the definitions of staple foods that stores must
    carry in order to participate in SNAP. It would change the
    number of staple foods that stores must have on their shelves
    at all times in order to qualify for the program. And the rule
    would impose arbitrary disqualification from the program for
    all stores that sell too many heated foods. I will briefly
    explain the problems from this part of the rule.
        The rule makes changes to the definition of staple foods to
    exclude multiple food items, such as stews, soups, and frozen
    dinners, allowing them to be counted towards our stocking
    requirements. Large numbers of the basic items that stores of
    all kinds sell have multiple ingredients in them. These foods
    have been treated as staple foods for a long time, and American
    consumers are provided savings and convenience in food
    preparation. The proposal would require retailers to publicly
    display at all times at least six units of every one of seven
    single food ingredients, and varieties in four staple food
    categories, a total of 168 items to qualify for the program.
    Practically speaking, Casey's, and most convenience stores,
    will have to stock far more than 168 items to remain in
    compliance for the items we sell each week.
        Casey's stores are larger than average convenience stores,
    and have very limited storage space. It is our practice to only
    have two units of a particular item on a shelf at a given time.
    This is generally because we don't have room for more. We are
    limited by our distribution practices. We only deliver to our
    stores once a week, and use store-driven data to determine how
    many units of a particular item to deliver to each store in
    order to maximize sales, and minimize spoilage. This proposal
    will mean either the stores leave the program, or more food
    will spoil or be wasted before it can be sold, or both.
        In addition to the stocking requirements, the proposal's
    change to the definition of variety will cause problems. The
    new definition would say that two types of the same items, like
    two kinds of meats, are no longer varieties of staple food, but
    just one variety. For example, sliced ham and bacon would be
    one item. This dramatically changes the qualifications for SNAP
    retailers. To meet the variety requirements in the meat
    category alone, Casey's would have to stock items, like duck
    and lamb, that we don't stock today because they don't sell.
        On top of these problems, the proposal says that if a SNAP
    retailer has 15 percent or more of its total food sales in
    items that are cooked or heated before or after the purchase,
    the retailer would be automatically ineligible to participate
    in SNAP. That is true even if the heated foods are sold
    exclusively to all non-SNAP customers, or if the heated foods
    are sold by a separate business, like a fast food entity, that
    just happens to operate out of our space. This provision alone
    will knock out virtually all 1,931 of our stores from the
    program. Not only would this be a loss for our company, but it
    would be a loss for the customers that rely on our business.
        If a chain like Casey's can't meet this requirement, we
    believe that the whole industry won't. So we would ask that you
    keep eligibility for customers like us, and I hope that we
    don't make these changes. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Beech follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Douglas M. Beech, J.D., Legal Counsel and
    Director of Government Relations, Casey's General Stores, Inc., Ankeny,
                                     IA; on
              Behalf of National Association of Convenience Stores
    The Past, Present, Future of SNAP: Retailers Are Critical Partners in
            Carrying Out the Program
        My name is Douglas M. Beech. I am the Legal Counsel and Director of
    Government Relations for Casey's General Stores, Inc. (``Casey's'') and
    I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share my
    views regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (``SNAP''
    or ``the Program'').
        I am testifying today on behalf of the National Association of
    Convenience Stores (``NACS''). NACS is an international trade
    association representing more than 2,200 retail and 1,800 supplier
    company members in the convenience and petroleum retailing industry.
    NACS member companies do business in nearly 50 countries worldwide,
    with the majority of members based in the United States. In 2015, the
    industry employed more than 2\1/2\ million workers and generated $574.8
    billion in total sales, representing approximately 3.2 percent of the
    United States' GDP--or $1 of every $30 spent. The majority of the
    industry's 154,000+ stores consist of small, independent operators.
    More than 70 percent of the industry is composed of companies that
    operate ten stores or fewer, and 63 percent of them operate a single
    store. While many people associate convenience stores with gasoline
    sales, in-store sales are becoming an increasingly significant portion
    of our business and account for \1/3\ of our industry's gross profit
    dollars.
        Casey's General Stores, Inc. is headquartered in Ankeny, Iowa. What
    started off as a small family run business has turned into a multi-
    state chain with a total of 1,931 stores spread throughout Arkansas,
    Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri,
    Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and
    Wisconsin employing approximately 34,000 people. Our stores are
    important fixtures in local communities not only because of the
    products and services we provide but also because of the employment
    opportunities we offer. Fifty-seven percent of our stores are in towns
    of 5,000 people or less and 25 percent of our stores are in towns of
    5,000 to 20,000 people. Our stores are famous for selling not only
    traditional grocery items, but also pizza and other prepared foods. In
    fact, approximately 40 percent of our total food sales come from
    prepared food items. Casey's looks forward to continued growth. Over
    the last 5 fiscal years we have added 170 newly constructed sites and
    acquired 214 additional locations. In Fiscal Year 2016, Casey's hopes
    to build or acquire approximately 80 stores and complete 100 major
    store remodels. In February of this year, Casey's marked its continued
    growth by opening its second distribution center, located in Terre
    Haute, Indiana.
        Due to Casey's presence in rural towns and cities throughout the
    Midwest, we understand the important role convenience stores and other
    small format retailers play in providing food to low-income families
    through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (``SNAP'' or the
    ``Program''). For this reason, Casey's is particularly concerned with
    the February 17th proposed rule put forth by the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture's (``USDA'') Food and Nutrition Service (``FNS'' or
    ``Agency''). This proposed rule will alter the eligibility requirements
    that retailers must meet to participate in the Program, and would push
    all of our stores--and tens of thousands of other small format
    retailers--out of SNAP. Below, I offer more detailed comments about our
    role in the Program and the potential consequences of the proposed
    rule.
    I. Casey's Is a Proud and Valuable Participant in SNAP
        Casey's stores have been participating in SNAP for over 30 years.
    Of our 1,931 stores, virtually all are authorized and do accept SNAP
    customers. In fact, Casey's stores process roughly 5.5 million SNAP
    transactions per year. Most of our licensing goes through the FNS
    office near the District of Columbia, and we have never had any
    problems with that process or working with FNS.
        Our stores, and convenience stores throughout the country, provide
    consumers with convenient locations and extended hours in which to shop
    for food. Approximately \1/2\ of our stores are open 24 hours per day,
    7 days a week--so we are always accessible for customers to come in to
    purchase food items they may need, whenever they need them. As
    mentioned above, a majority of Casey's stores are located in
    communities with a population of 5,000 or less, and many of these
    communities do not have larger format retailers like grocery stores in
    their town. While this can also be the case in urban communities,
    Casey's experience exemplifies the trend in rural communities.
    Convenience stores like Casey's are frequently the only source of many
    grocery items in these communities and the only location where SNAP
    recipients can redeem their benefits.
        By participating in the Program, our stores serve as an essential
    access point for SNAP recipients. We enable recipients to purchase a
    wide variety of foods that Congress has determined may be purchased
    with SNAP benefits. Casey's has determined that up to 220 of our stores
    are the only location in the community where SNAP recipients can redeem
    their benefits and in many other communities we are the only location
    to use SNAP benefits after a late work shift ends or before one begins.
    Accordingly, having Casey's in the Program saves many SNAP recipients'
    time and resources by not having to travel outside their home community
    to pick up such items as bread and milk.
        In addition, Casey's works hard to ensure the integrity of the
    Program. As a sophisticated SNAP participant, Casey's utilizes a modern
    point of sale system, which differentiates between almost 2,900 SNAP-
    eligible products we sell and our SNAP-ineligible products at the
    checkout, to ensure that only permissible products are purchased with
    SNAP benefits. Every day, Casey's stores and employees strive to make
    the shopping experience of all its customers, including a significant
    number of SNAP beneficiaries, efficient and pleasant. Although Casey's
    hopes that one day no Americans will be food-insecure and SNAP will
    become obsolete, until that day comes, we hope to remain an active
    participant in SNAP in order to provide important food access to
    thousands of citizens who need it.
    II. FNS' Retailer Eligibility Proposed Rule Will Push Almost All of Our
            Stores Out of SNAP
        On February 17, 2016, USDA's FNS issued a proposed rule that would
    significantly modify retailer eligibility requirements in SNAP. The
    proposal is intended to implement updated ``Depth of Stock''
    requirements contained in the Agriculture Act of 2014, commonly known
    as the 2014 Farm Bill.
        As this Committee is well-aware, during negotiations over the 2014
    Farm Bill, Congress recognized the important role that small format
    retailers play in SNAP, particularly their role as access points for
    SNAP beneficiaries. After extensive negotiations between lawmakers and
    stakeholders, Congress adopted changes to the so-called ``depth of
    stock'' requirements--the requirements that address the amount and
    variety of food a retailer must have in stock to participate in SNAP as
    a retail food store. By enacting these provisions, Congress sought to
    increase choices for SNAP beneficiaries while ensuring that those
    enhanced depth of stock requirements were not unduly burdensome for
    retailers. Congress recognized that unduly burdensome eligibility
    requirements would hurt small businesses and result in restricted
    access for SNAP beneficiaries. NACS--and Casey's--supported this
    compromise and supported the final 2014 Farm Bill.
        The proposed rule would codify the updated depth of stock
    requirements as contained in the 2014 Farm Bill. These provisions,
    which were based on the existing definitions of staple foods, require
    retailers to offer at least seven different varieties of food items in
    each of the four staple food categories, including one perishable item
    in three of those categories. This was the compromise reached by
    Congress and broadly supported as a way to increase nutritional choices
    for SNAP recipients without overburdening small retailers. However, FNS
    went far beyond Congressional intent in its proposed rule and included
    several additional provisions that will push Casey's stores and tens of
    thousands of other small format retailers out of the Program.
        Under the proposal, the definition of a retail food store is
    modified to exclude any retail outlet with more than 15% of its total
    food sales in items that are ``cooked or heated on site before or after
    purchase.'' This measure applies to all food sales--not just SNAP food
    sales. And, this exclusion applies even to separate companies doing
    business under the same roof, such as a Subway or other fast food
    franchise that has a point of sale in the same building as a
    convenience store. If two food businesses operate under the same roof,
    FNS will consider their total food sales jointly to determine whether
    that 15 percent threshold is met. Unlike other convenience stores where
    they may have a separate food franchise doing business under the same
    roof, Casey's prepared foods are sold in our store along with our
    traditional grocery items. Nevertheless, this provision alone would
    disqualify virtually all of Casey's stores from participating in SNAP.
    Even though SNAP recipients cannot redeem their benefits on hot foods,
    this provision would penalize us for meeting our non-SNAP customers'
    desire for prepared foods.
        Frankly, what foods we sell to non-SNAP customers should not be
    FNS' concern. They don't regulate those sales and those customers would
    be offended to know that FNS wants to penalize them (and us) for buying
    prepared food in our stores. And make no mistake; this would penalize
    all our customers, not just SNAP customers. If you take away our SNAP
    customers, that reduces our business and changes our economic model.
    That can mean fewer stores and jobs in many small towns. To make those
    negative changes based on sales that the Federal Government has nothing
    to do with makes no sense.
        In addition to this 15 percent prepared foods threshold, the
    proposed rule makes several significant changes to the stocking
    requirements that would make it very difficult for Casey's stores or
    any other small stores to continue to participate in SNAP. For example,
    the proposed rule would alter the definition of ``staple foods'' to
    exclude multiple ingredient items--such as soups, stews, and frozen
    dinners--from being counted towards depth of stock requirements. While
    these foods would remain acceptable items for participants to purchase
    with their SNAP benefits, they have long been treated as staple foods.
    For many families, of course, these are staple foods. Have you ever
    prepared a frozen meal for yourself or your family? Have you made them
    a can of soup? FNS is now trying to tell you that isn't good enough. We
    all know these are foods we eat and families around the country eat
    them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
        And, there is nothing inherently healthier about single ingredient
    foods--like a bag of flour--than multiple ingredient foods. Yogurt with
    fruit, packaged salads, mixed vegetables, fruit salads, and many more
    are multiple ingredient items. The fact that more than one thing is in
    there does not make those items less healthy, but it can make it easier
    for someone to turn them into a meal. Perhaps FNS would like a world in
    which SNAP beneficiaries could spend all day preparing meals from
    scratch for their families. But that is not the world in which
    Americans live today--whether they participate in SNAP or not. American
    families want convenient foods that are easy to prepare. Casey's and
    other convenience stores provide those foods.
        A large percentage of the traditional grocery items that Casey's
    stores stock are multiple ingredient items. A change in the definition
    of ``staple foods'' to exclude these items from the depth of stock
    requirements only serves to make it more difficult for Casey's and
    other small format retailers to participate in the Program.
        If this were not enough, FNS also proposes to require retailers to
    publicly display at least six stocking units for each of the seven
    single-ingredient food varieties in all four staple food categories, a
    total of 168 items, to qualify for the program. In reality, a retailer
    must stock far more than these 168 items since the retailer would need
    to replace any item that is purchased in order to remain in compliance
    with the regulations. As a practical matter, Casey's--and most
    convenience stores--will have difficulty complying with this
    requirement. In fact, many larger stores such as groceries have times
    when they run low on particular foods before they get their next
    delivery. Should those difficulties, including at times when there is
    unusually high demand for particular foods, disqualify stores from
    SNAP?
        On average, Casey's stores are between 2,500\2\ and 4,000\2\, and
    there is limited storage space outside of the store floor. With this in
    mind, it is our practice to store approximately two units of a
    particular item on a shelf at any given time. Frankly, we don't have
    room to put six of every SNAP required item on a shelf. We don't tend
    to do that even for some of our fastest-selling items. There just isn't
    enough space. And, we're among the largest stores in our industry. I
    believe it would be extremely difficult for any convenience store, and
    even small grocers, to ensure that it stocks 168 of exactly the right
    combination of staple items at all times.
        Even though we are a vertically integrated company and self-supply
    and distribute, our distribution practices conform to industry
    averages--and our stores only get deliveries one time per week. We use
    store-driven data to determine how many units of a particular item to
    deliver to each store each week in order to maximize sales and minimize
    spoilage. We will not be able to deliver and stock extra items solely
    for the purpose of meeting the SNAP stocking requirements, particularly
    in light of the proposed definition of ``variety,'' which does not
    reflect economic reality or American eating habits. And, because many
    of these products will need to be perishable, we would need to stock so
    many items to make up for the ones we sold before the next delivery
    that we would end up spoiling and wasting a lot of food.
        In addition, FNS has proposed to change the meaning of the term
    ``variety'' in a way that will make it even more difficult for small
    format retailers to meet the depth of stock requirements. FNS' rule
    says that two different varieties of a food will no longer count as two
    different varieties of staple foods. For example, two meats from the
    same animal--sliced ham and bacon or roast beef and ground beef--would
    no longer count as different ``varieties'' for retailer eligibility
    requirements. This is absurd and fundamentally changes the way the
    Program has always worked. In order to meet the requirements for
    variety in the ``meat, poultry, or fish'' category, for example, FNS
    has listed duck, catfish, shrimp, lamb, and tofu as acceptable variety
    options. Without listing those types of items, it's hard to see how a
    retailer could stock seven different varieties in the meat group with
    FNS' odd, new definition. Casey's--and many of the supermarkets in the
    state we operate--doesn't stock lamb, duck or tofu today, because such
    items do not sell. If we have to stock those items, we will be forced
    to cede shelf space to those items at the expense of better selling
    items. This applies to all of the staple food categories. Having two
    varieties of hard cheeses, for example, no longer will count as two
    varieties of staple foods. Having two varieties of bread from the same
    type of flour--such as sliced white bread and hamburger rolls--will no
    longer count as two varieties of staple foods. The list of absurdities
    grows with every example.
        If FNS has to count tofu as a staple meat in our stores in Iowa to
    try to make its new rules sound plausible, that is a good indication
    that something is seriously wrong. Trying to comply with this odd
    change of definitions will mean huge losses of sales of more popular
    items and significant spoilage costs as FNS' favored foods go bad on
    our shelves.
        To summarize, under FNS' ill-advised proposed rule, Casey's will be
    required to stock at least six stocking units of seven single-
    ingredient varieties of staple foods in each of the four staple food
    categories, including one perishable item in at least three of the
    categories--an unwieldy task. In proposing these requirements, FNS went
    far beyond the compromise reached by Congress, and the end result will
    be the elimination of tens of thousands of convenience stores from the
    Program. This includes the elimination of all Casey's stores as SNAP
    retailers. If a larger sophisticated chain like Casey's will not be
    able to comply with this proposal, I find it hard to believe that any
    single-store operators or small chains could.
        While the loss of Casey's participation in SNAP would be
    unfortunate for our company, more importantly, it would be detrimental
    to SNAP recipients who rely on our stores to redeem their benefits. It
    will be these recipients who face increased travel and convenience
    burdens, and possibly the complete loss of access to the food they
    need. Our company located stores in smaller communities for a reason--
    because we knew those communities needed a retail food store. Since
    then, we have gotten to know our customers and truly become a fixture
    in those communities. It is disheartening to consider the potential
    effects of FNS' proposed rule on those communities and the low-income
    Americans who are seeking to provide food for their families.
        In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress properly balanced the need to
    increase food choices for SNAP recipients while ensuring small format
    retailers could participate as SNAP retailers. FNS has gone far beyond
    the compromise made by Congress and is endangering the Program and the
    people who rely on it for their food.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Beech. Mr. Martincich?

    STATEMENT OF CARL MARTINCICH, VICE PRESIDENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPS AND COUNTRY STORES,
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRUCK
    STOP OPERATORS (NATSO) REPRESENTING AMERICA'S TRAVEL PLAZAS AND
                               TRUCKSTOPS

        Mr. Martincich. Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking
    Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee. I am Carl
    Martincich, the Vice President of Human Resources and
    Government Affairs with Love's Travel Stops and Country Stores,
    headquartered in Oklahoma City. I am honored to testify today
    on behalf of the National Association of Truck Stop Operators,
    but I am also here representing our customers. It is important
    to begin by discussing the business model under which
    truckstops operate, as well as the vital and growing role that
    we play in the SNAP Program.
        Our industry is diverse and evolving. Every location
    includes multiple profit centers, from fuel sales and auto
    repair and supply shops, to hotels, sit down restaurants, quick
    service restaurants, food courts, and convenience stores. Truck
    stops that once tailored exclusively to truck drivers now cater
    to the entire traveling public, and the local populations that
    live in close proximity to the travel center location.
        Many NATSO members' convenience stores redeem SNAP
    benefits. Because we are typically located in rural areas with
    few other places for disadvantaged residents to purchase food,
    SNAP consumers often rely on our stores. If we did not
    participate in SNAP, many program beneficiaries would be forced
    to travel long distances to purchase eligible products. This
    would be not only inconvenient, but for many of our customers,
    virtually impossible, as many SNAP recipients do not have a
    reliable means of transportation.
        Our experience with SNAP today is excellent. There are very
    few administrative complexities or glitches, and USDA staff is
    professional and helpful. By the end of this year, my company
    will have over 400 locations in 40 states to redeem SNAP. When
    it comes to providing healthy food options, we have always been
    on the cutting edge of the industry. Today we offer a wide
    variety of fresh, healthy food items. We do this because our
    customers demand it, and we respond to our customers.
        However, as a staunch supporter of our customers, and the
    SNAP Program, Love's is extremely concerned with the USDA's
    recently proposed SNAP rule, which is completely incompatible
    with our business model. For example, it includes a provision
    stipulating that no more than 15 percent of a SNAP retailer's
    total food sales can be for items that are cooked or heated on-
    site. A fundamental feature of travel plazas is that we have
    both convenience stores and restaurants at one location, open
    24 hours a day. This is integral to our business model.
        Only the convenience stores at our travel plazas redeem
    SNAP benefits. Our restaurants do not. Nonetheless, the
    proposed rule would combine food sales across all of these
    different food serving entities, and impose a 15 percent cap on
    food sales for items cooked or heated on site. Virtually no
    truckstop would satisfy this criteria. This would not further
    the program's purpose to provide access to healthy food choices
    for the nation's most vulnerable citizens. In fact, it
    threatens the achievement of this purpose by permitting USDA to
    make arbitrary decisions, denying qualified retailers'
    applications. This, in turn, denies SNAP customers a convenient
    source for food.
        If one of our convenience stores is eligible to participate
    in SNAP based on USDA's guidelines, it should not be rendered
    ineligible simply because we also operate a restaurant adjacent
    to that store. In addition, the proposed rule contains a number
    of provisions revising SNAP's depth of stock requirements.
    Among other things, it imposes a 14-fold increase in the number
    of items retailers must stock in order to participate. These
    provisions are unworkable for small format retailers. USDA's
    proposed rule should be revised substantially before it is
    finalized.
        In closing, I urge the Department of Agriculture and
    Members of this Committee to evaluate retailer eligibility from
    the beneficiaries' perspective. Beneficiaries are often in a
    position where balancing life's demands require them to prefer
    affordable, quick, and easy meals for the families to eat. We
    should not turn this into a luxury unavailable to the SNAP
    recipients who live in the rural areas near our locations.
    Indeed, it is a situation that everybody, from the witnesses
    testifying before you today, to the Members of this Committee,
    officials at USDA, members of my own family often confront. Let
    us not lose sight of the fact that the SNAP Program is designed
    to make the lives of America's most economically vulnerable
    citizens easier, rather than harder. I am hopeful that the
    travel plaza industry can continue serving these customers, and
    playing our part in fulfilling this purpose for many years to
    come. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am
    happy to answer any questions as well.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Beech follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Carl Martincich, Vice President of Human
       Resources and Government Affairs, Love's Travel Stops and Country
     Stores, Oklahoma City, OK; on Behalf of National Association of Truck
        Stop Operators (NATSO) Representing America's Travel Plazas and
                                   Truckstops
    Summary of Testimony
      1.  The travel plaza and truckstop business is a diverse and evolving
                industry. Every travel plaza and truckstop includes
                multiple profit centers, catering to not only professional
                truck drivers, but to the entire traveling public, as well
                as the local population that lives in close proximity to a
                travel center location.

      2.  The travel plaza industry plays a vital and growing role in the
                Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Many
                NATSO members' convenience stores redeem SNAP benefits.
                These stores are often located in rural areas with few
                other places for local, economically disadvantaged
                residents to purchase food. Such residents often rely on
                NATSO members' stores. If these stores did not participate
                in SNAP, many SNAP beneficiaries would be forced to travel
                long distances to purchase SNAP-eligible products.

      3.  Although Love's' initial experience with the Food Stamp program
                at the beginning of the last decade was not favorable, most
                of those issues have been resolved. Today, our experience
                with SNAP is excellent. There are very few administrative
                complexities or glitches, and USDA staff is professional
                and helpful. Some potential areas for improvement include
                allowing retail sites to test SNAP point-of-sale equipment
                before it goes live, and providing a self-serve mechanism
                inside the store for beneficiaries to check their account
                balances prior to making purchasing decisions.

      4.  Love's has always been on the cutting edge of the industry when
                it comes to providing healthier food options for the
                consumer. We are driven by consumer demand, and have
                responded to our customers' evolving demands for healthy
                food items in a variety of ways. One example is our grab-
                and-go fresh fruit program, where we display a variety of
                fresh fruits (apples, bananas, fruit cups, etc.) in a high
                value, high visibility area near the cashier stand.

      5.  Love's is extremely concerned with a recent proposed rule issued
                by the USDA. The proposal would effectively ban the
                truckstop and travel plaza industry from continuing to
                redeem SNAP benefits, harming not only these businesses but
                more importantly the beneficiaries who have come to rely on
                them to buy food for their families. Because recipients in
                these areas often have limited or no transportation to get
                to a qualified store, reducing the number of redemption
                points in this manner would leave them with even fewer
                options. USDA and the Members of this Committee should
                consider the beneficiary's perspective as it considers
                retailer eligibility policy. The USDA's proposed rule
                should be revised substantially before it is finalized.
    Introduction
        Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is
    Carl Martincich. I am the Vice President of Human Resources and
    Government Affairs at Love's Travel Stops and Country Stores
    headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.\1\ I am testifying today on
    behalf of NATSO, the national trade association Representing America's
    Travel Plazas and Truckstops.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Founded in 1964 and headquartered in Oklahoma City, Love's
    Travel Stops & Country Stores and its affiliated companies have over
    15,000 employees, 370 retail locations in 40 states, 230 truck tire
    care facilities, 700 fuel transport trucks, 1,000 rail cars, seven fuel
    terminals, and five hotels throughout the United States. Love's is one
    of the largest food service operators in the country, owning and
    operating hundreds of quick service restaurants and over twenty popular
    brands. Love's is currently No. 14 on the Forbes list of America's
    largest private companies. Love's is a family-owned business, and
    includes Executive Chairman Tom Love, Co-CEO Frank Love, Co-CEO Greg
    Love and Vice President of Communications Jenny Love Meyer.
        Carl Martincich is the Vice President of Human Resources and
    Government Affairs for Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores. He is
    responsible for all human resource functions including recruiting,
    training, payroll and benefits. Carl is also responsible for the
    direction of various government affairs initiatives at both the state
    and Federal level. Carl joined Love's in 1982, beginning his career in
    store operations managing a single convenience store and then
    progressed to multi-unit supervision directing 60 stores in five
    states. He moved into the corporate office in the mid 1990's and has
    been in his current position since 2011.
        \2\ NATSO's mission is to advance the success of the truckstop and
    travel plaza industry. Since 1960, NATSO has dedicated itself to this
    mission and the needs of truckstops, travel plazas, their suppliers,
    and their customers by serving as America's official source of
    information on the industry. NATSO also acts as the voice of the
    industry on Capitol Hill and before regulatory agencies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The travel plaza and truckstop business is a diverse and evolving
    industry. Every travel plaza and truckstop location includes multiple
    profit centers, from motor fuel sales and auto-repair and supply shops,
    to hotels, sit-down restaurants, quick-service restaurants and food
    courts, and convenience stores. It is an evolving industry that once
    was tailored solely to truck drivers, and now caters to the entire
    traveling public, as well as the local population that lives in close
    proximity to a travel center location.
        Convenience stores located at travel plazas are increasingly
    offering fresh food and meals for our customers to purchase and eat at
    home. Healthy food options have increased significantly in the industry
    as customer demands have continued to evolve. As an industry that
    prides itself on recognizing and adapting to our customers' needs, we
    realize that often times we are the most convenient place for the local
    population to shop for food. The industry has responded, and hopes to
    continue to grow in the fresh and prepared food space.
        The travel plaza industry plays a vital and growing role in the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Many NATSO members'
    convenience stores redeem SNAP benefits. These stores are often located
    in rural areas with few other places for local, economically
    disadvantaged residents to purchase food. Such residents often rely on
    NATSO members' stores. If these stores did not participate in SNAP,
    many SNAP beneficiaries would be forced to travel long distances to
    purchase SNAP-eligible products. This would be not only inconvenient,
    but for many of our customers virtually impossible as they might only
    be able to shop at a store within walking distance of their home. Many
    SNAP recipients do not have access to means of transportation.
        In the testimony that follows, I will provide a brief overview of
    Love's' experience with SNAP, as well as a brief discussion of how the
    government could harness the travel plaza industry to improve the
    program. I will also address Love's' effort to increase the amount of
    fresh healthy food items that we offer in our stores. I will conclude
    by discussing the proposed rule that the Department of Agriculture
    (USDA) recently released, and why it would effectively foreclose Love's
    and other travel plazas from continuing to play their important role in
    SNAP by providing food to rural America's most disadvantaged citizens
    as SNAP retailers.
    Love's' History with SNAP
        Love's first participated in the Food Stamp program in the early
    2000's offering redemption of benefits primarily in rural areas of
    Oklahoma at approximately fifteen Love's Country Store locations.
    Participating in the Food Stamp program at that time was a very time-
    consuming process for licensing, handling the coupons, and redemption.
    The licensing process in particular was extremely difficult and
    laborious for adding and qualifying new stores. The certification and
    training process was inefficient as store management had to travel to a
    central training location, sometimes over 100 miles away. The Food
    Stamp coupons were handled manually at the register like cash and the
    reimbursement to the retailer often took many weeks.
        In the middle part of the last decade, Love's briefly exited the
    SNAP program. We found that the laborious administrative costs did not
    justify an investment in the face of what was, at the time, minimal
    consumer demand.
        In 2008 Love's began to reevaluate potential participation in the
    program. As the economy struggled, many more of our customers were
    qualifying for assistance and--particularly in rural areas--began
    asking for SNAP redemption at our stores.
        At the same time, technological advancements made our participation
    in the program easier. No longer did we have to travel many miles for
    training. The transaction complexities subsided and redemption lag
    times diminished exponentially. The licensing/authorization process
    became, and remains to this day, quite simple.
        Indeed, the current administration and application enrollment
    process for established vendors to install new SNAP redemption points
    of sale is de-centralized by region and handled efficiently through
    emails. Also, with the easy-to-use Electronic Benefit Transfer or
    ``EBT'' card used for redeeming SNAP benefits, it reduces the instances
    of system breakdowns, problems and glitches.
        In 2010, after a thorough examination of the program changes and
    our customers' evolving needs, Love's made the business decision to
    requalify for (now-)SNAP redemption across our network. Today more than
    300 Love's Travel Stops and nearly 60 Love's Country Stores are
    certified SNAP redemption retailers. We expect this number to grow, as
    we continue to see high demand in rural, low-income communities where a
    Love's store may be the only redemption point for 20-30 miles.
    Areas for Program Improvement
        It is worth reiterating that, as a general matter, our experience
    with SNAP has been positive and efficient. USDA staff have for the most
    part been easy to work with, and have done well working with Love's
    employees and the entire private-sector to facilitate widespread access
    to nutrition for America's low-income households. Love's is quite
    satisfied with our recent experience with the program and those
    individuals who are charged with administering it.
        In communicating with my colleagues who work with SNAP on a daily
    basis, several common suggestions for improvement arose, however.
        First, it would be helpful if there was a process for the retailer
    to test the system prior to activation, or ``going live.'' Once a
    location is certified there is no way of testing the system for
    accuracy until we run the first ``EBT'' card from a customer. This
    stands in contrast to most other technology systems we implement at the
    store level, which generally provide for numerous testing and
    verification opportunities.
        Second, we should have a mechanism in the store for customers to
    look up their EBT balance prior to making purchasing decisions. This
    could come in the form of a kiosk or other type of self-serve
    verification terminal. As it stands today, if the SNAP recipient does
    not have access to a computer there is no way for them to verify the
    balance on their ``EBT'' card until they get to the cash register. This
    may result in a negative interaction between the cashier and customer,
    where customers are informed, potentially with others standing within
    earshot, that they do not have sufficient funds to complete their
    purchase. This is not good for the customer, for Love's, or for the
    relationship between the two.
        One area where USDA has improved is the manner in which benefit
    payments to beneficiaries have been staggered throughout the month,
    rather than all beneficiaries receiving their benefits on the same day.
    Before, there was a consistent uptick in SNAP customers coming in soon
    after benefits were dispersed, creating store traffic and other
    complexities. Today, benefits are dispensed on a staggered basis. Every
    month, the ``EBT'' cards are re-allocated or loaded with the new
    month's benefits for the recipient. The re-allocation takes place from
    the 1st to the 10th of every month, based on the last four digits of
    the recipient's SNAP case number (example: 0-3 = 1st, 4-6 = 5th, 7-9 =
    10th of each month). Spreading out the re-allocation in this way
    eliminates an influx of recipients in our stores on the first of each
    month.
    Love's Initiatives To Sell Healthy Foods
        Love's has always been on the cutting edge of the industry when it
    comes to providing healthier food options for the consumer. We are
    driven by consumer demand, both in terms of identifying popular
    products that we currently sell, and identifying products that our
    customers are asking us to sell that may not currently be found in our
    stores. As with any successful retailer, identifying what our customers
    want and responding to it is what we do.
        With respect to healthy food options, there has been a steady
    increase in demand, though it has not been as substantial as many
    public officials might prefer. Nonetheless, we have responded to it in
    a variety of ways. For example, with our grab-and-go fresh fruit
    program, we display a variety of fresh fruits (apples, bananas, fruit
    cups, etc.) in a high value, high visibility area near the cashier
    stand. This is the most valuable real estate in a convenience retail
    environment, as it offers an opportunity for retailers to display high
    margin, ``impulse-buy'' items as customers approach and wait in line
    for the cash register. This is where many Love's stores place fresh
    fruit options.
        Although we have had great success with our grab-and-go fresh fruit
    program, it is important to note that selling perishable food products
    in the rural areas where our stores tend to be located is complex.
    Deliveries are less frequent than at larger grocery stores located in
    more population-dense areas. Our wholesale suppliers make fewer items
    available to us than they do larger grocery chains. Availability is
    tied largely to what our supplier identifies--through sophisticated
    data analysis--to be most likely to sell in our specific channel of
    commerce.
        Additionally, as is common in chain retail, each Love's store is
    internally required to carry a standard selection of items for
    consistency across our network, with some flexibility for local and
    regional tastes or specials whenever possible. Love's continues to have
    good success when offering a variety of fresh food and other healthy
    options.
        Notwithstanding these complexities, Love's works hard to try and
    expand the fresh and healthy offerings in our stores. Working closely
    with our vendors, we employ good product management skills to minimize
    spoilage and waste. With the typical design and layout of an existing
    Love's store, there is limited space to accommodate a changing and
    complex selection of fresh and healthy options. Love's' team of buyers
    and planning experts continue to implement creative layouts and designs
    to optimize storage and food preparation space limitations.
        I am particularly proud of Loves's' efforts to offer more fresh,
    healthy food items to our customers, and think we should be viewed as a
    model retailer in terms of helping USDA fulfill SNAP's objectives.
    USDA's Proposed Rule Enhancing SNAP Retailer Standards
        Before concluding, I would like to address some of the serious
    concerns I have with a recent rule USDA has proposed that would change
    SNAP retailer eligibility requirements.\3\ As written, the proposal
    would effectively ban the truckstop and travel plaza industry from
    continuing to redeem SNAP benefits, harming not only these businesses
    but more importantly the beneficiaries who have come to rely on them to
    buy food for their families. Because recipients in the rural areas
    where travel plazas tend to be located often have limited or no access
    to transportation to get to a qualified store, reducing the number of
    redemption points in this manner would leave them with even fewer
    options.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Enhancing Retailer Standards in the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP). 81 Fed. Reg. 8015 (Feb. 17, 2016).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The proposed rule is all-the-more troubling because it completely
    disregards Congress's clear intent when it passed the 2014 Farm Bill.
    In that legislation, after many hours of negotiations, Congress sought
    to strike a balance between (i) enhancing beneficiaries' access to
    fresh, healthy food options, with (ii) the integral role that small
    format retailers--including convenience stores located within travel
    plazas--play in the program. Congress clearly wanted to enhance
    retailers' stocking requirements, but just as clearly it did not want
    to impose burdens so onerous that small format retailers could not meet
    them.
        To be clear, Love's does not oppose efforts to increase
    beneficiaries' access to fresh, healthy food. But the USDA's proposed
    rule doesn't do that. In fact, it would decrease beneficiaries' access
    to healthy items by prohibiting them from buying such items with SNAP
    benefits at Love's and other similar stores.
        In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress adopted changes to the SNAP
    regulations' ``depth of stock'' requirements establishing minimum
    quantities of staple food items that retailers must offer for sale in
    order to redeem SNAP benefits. By increasing the minimum number of
    items in each staple food category from three to seven, and increasing
    the categories in which retailers must have a perishable item from two
    to three, Congress exhibited a clear understanding that (a) excessive
    stocking requirements would uniquely affect small format retailers and
    thereby restrict access for beneficiaries that frequent them, and (b)
    this was an undesirable outcome.
        USDA's proposed rule exhibits no such understanding. In fact, it
    appears to directly dismiss Congress's view and proceed with a rule
    designed to force small format retailers out of the program. The
    proposal would do this in two ways:
    ``15% Provision''
        The proposal provides that no more than 15% of a SNAP retailer's
    total food sales can be for items that are cooked or heated on-site.
        A fundamental feature of travel plazas is that they contain both
    convenience stores and quick-serve or sit-down restaurants at one
    location. A good travel plaza is a ``one-stop-shop'' for the traveling
    public, both commercial truck drivers and recreational travelers. To
    serve the needs of this diverse customer base effectively, at all hours
    of the day and night, we need to offer a variety of food options, from
    quick grab-and-go snacks and beverages, to more formal sit-down dining
    options. This diversity of profit centers--all within a single travel
    plaza location--is integral to our business model.
        The proposed rule would aggregate food sales across all of these
    different food-serving entities, and impose a cap of 15% for food that
    is cooked or heated on-site. It does this even though only the
    convenience stores at our travel plazas are in the business of
    redeeming SNAP benefits. If we operate a quick-serve restaurant
    adjacent to that convenience store, our customers cannot buy food at
    that restaurant with their SNAP benefits. The two entities are, for
    purposes of SNAP and from our customers' perspectives, completely
    separate.
        Nonetheless, USDA takes pains to emphasize that it is conflating
    the two entities for purposes of this proposed rule:

              Establishments that include separate businesses that operate
            under one roof and have commonalities, such as sale of similar
            foods, single management structure, shared space, logistics,
            bank accounts, employees, and/or inventory, are considered to
            be a single establishment when determining eligibility to
            participate in SNAP as retail food stores.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 81 Fed. Reg. 8020 (Feb. 17, 2016) (emphasis added).

        USDA's insistence on this issue is perplexing. If a Love's
    convenience store is eligible to participate in SNAP based on USDA's
    guidelines, it should not be rendered ineligible simply because Love's
    also operates a restaurant adjacent to that store. Indeed, at literally
    hundreds of our SNAP-redeeming convenience store locations, there are
    also hot food restaurants, and these two entities can ``operate under
    one roof and have commonalities, such as . . . single management
    structure [Love's], shared space, logistics, bank accounts, and
    employees.'' \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Compare Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It should be noted that there are other travel plaza companies and
    operators who take a different business approach and are more likely to
    lease out property at their travel plaza locations to third parties to
    operate restaurants and other businesses on-site. For example, rather
    than the travel plaza company operating a quick-serve restaurant as a
    franchisee, the company might lease out the space to a separate
    business to run a quick-serve restaurant as a franchisee. To the
    customer, there is no noticeable difference between these two
    approaches. Yet to USDA, it appears to be a key factor in determining
    whether the convenience store that happens to be ``under the same
    roof'' as the restaurant is permitted to redeem SNAP benefits.
        This is silly.
        The 15% threshold is completely incompatible with the travel
    plazas' business model--far more than 15% of a given travel plaza's
    food sales will be cooked or heated on-site when factoring in these
    other restaurant-type entities. This 15% provision would likely
    foreclose every Love's location from continuing to redeem SNAP.
        Beyond the negative consequences that this 15% provision would
    trigger, it is premised upon a flawed method of determining retailer
    eligibility--one that Congress specifically rejected during the 2014
    Farm Bill negotiations. Once a retailer meets the necessary eligibility
    requirements to redeem SNAP benefits, it should be allowed to
    participate in the Program. Love's is in the business of identifying
    products that our customers want to buy and then selling those
    products. As with any successful retailer, we understand that demand
    drives supply, supply does not drive demand. For this reason, it makes
    little sense to tie a retailer's eligibility to participate in SNAP on
    what products its customers choose to purchase, for this is a variable
    over which retailers do not have control.
        Placing a ceiling on the quantity of hot and prepared food items--
    which are ineligible to be purchased with SNAP benefits--that SNAP
    retailers are permitted to sell would eliminate many small format
    retailers from the program, and discourage many more from getting
    involved to begin with. This would not further the program's purpose to
    ``promote the general welfare and safeguard the health and well being
    of the nation's population by raising levels of nutrition among low-
    income households.'' \6\ In fact, it threatens the achievement of this
    purpose by permitting USDA to make arbitrary decisions denying
    qualified retailers' application to redeem SNAP benefits. This in turn
    denies those retailers' SNAP customers a convenient source for food.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ 7 CFR 271.1(a).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If a retail store stocks a sufficient quantity of healthy, staple
    food items to participate in SNAP, it should be able to participate
    without regard to whether it is operating in the same building as a
    restaurant or deli. Those two issues simply are unrelated.
    Depth of Stock
        The proposal would also require all SNAP retailers to stock more
    than 160 ``staple food'' items at all times in order to redeem SNAP
    benefits--a 14-fold increase from current requirements.
        Further, it eliminates many items that NATSO members sell from
    qualifying as ``staple food'' items, such as multi-ingredient items
    that people purchase and eat at home, including potpies, soups, cold
    pizza, and frozen dinners, or snack-food items such as crackers and
    carrot-and-dip ``to go'' packs. Finally, it prevents retailers from
    counting different types of a single food source as multiple
    ``varieties'' of that item (for example, ham and salami would both
    qualify as ``pork'' rather than different items that happen to be in
    the same category; turkey burgers, sliced turkey, and ground turkey all
    qualify as ``turkey'' rather than different items, etc.).
        This is a dramatic and unnecessary departure from current rules. It
    fundamentally disrupts the compromise that Congress reached in the 2014
    Farm Bill by changing the underlying definitions of terms that Congress
    relied upon in establishing enhanced depth of stock requirements.
        Most troubling is that these provisions appear to be specifically
    designed to make it extremely difficult and expensive for travel plazas
    and convenience stores to redeem SNAP benefits. Requiring a SNAP
    retailer to stock food products that officials at the Department of
    Agriculture would prefer customers to buy would not change customer
    purchasing habits. (Demand drives supply.) It would, however,
    discourage many retailers from participating in the program because it
    is simply bad business to stock products that their customers--SNAP and
    non-SNAP--simply will not buy. For those small format retailers
    continue to participate, it would also very likely lead to wasting
    food, as the retailers would be stocking perishable products that will
    not move quickly off of their shelves. Finally, it would lead to
    inventory management complications. Indeed, as the complexity of the
    proposed ``staple food'' requirements change so do the complexities of
    product management, storage, rotation, and display. Our stock rooms are
    stacked to the ceiling with products that we have determined our
    customers want to buy. Injecting an excessive amount of other types of
    products into our supply will be extremely complicated for our store
    and inventory managers.
        If the depth of stock provisions are finalized as proposed, it
    would lead Love's and many other retailers to completely reevaluate the
    decision to participate in SNAP. Many will exit the program.
        I urge the Department of Agriculture and Members of this Committee
    to consider the beneficiary's perspective as it considers retailer
    eligibility policy. Beneficiaries are often in a position where,
    sometimes, the limited hours of the day may require them to prepare
    affordable, quick-and-easy meals for their families to eat. It is a
    situation that everybody, from the witnesses testifying before you
    today, to the Members of this Committee, and even officials at USDA,
    often confront. We should not turn this activity into a luxury
    unavailable to SNAP beneficiaries who live in the rural areas near
    Love's locations. It is not fair to them, and it exhibits a level of
    disregard for the already difficult lives these citizens lead. We
    should be trying to make their lives easier, not harder.
        USDA has gone too far with this proposal. If finalized, it would
    effectively prohibit smaller format retailers from participating in
    SNAP, and thereby harm the SNAP beneficiaries that the agency is
    charged with helping.
    Conclusion
        The truckstop and travel plaza industry takes seriously its role in
    the SNAP program. Love's' experience with the program has been largely
    positive. I am hopeful that we can continue to work together and build
    on past successes, while learning from the program's shortcomings, to
    fulfill the program's purpose of raising nutrition levels of the
    nation's most vulnerable and needy citizens.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am of
    course happy to answer any questions you may have.

        The Chairman. Well, I thank our witnesses for their
    testimony. The chair would remind Members that they will be
    recognized for questioning in order of seniority for Members
    who were here at the start of the hearing. After that, Members
    will be recognized in order of arrival. I appreciate Members'
    understanding. We have a glitch in our vaunted technology
    system. Our clocks aren't working, so when we recognize each
    Member for 5 minutes, you don't have the normal lights. I have
    my handy-dandy stopwatch here, and, in order to keep us moving
    along, I will have to give you a 1 minute warning, but maybe I
    will just--one snap there, that--1 minute warning for you. So,
    with that, I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Wright, you talked about the qualification process, or
    the way you got your Carver Market officially recognized. There
    was a story this morning in the news about a storefront in
    Florida, no food whatsoever, that had redeemed about $13
    million in SNAP benefits, and they were raided, and those folks
    are going to be brought to justice because they stole money
    from the system. Can you walk us through what you had to go
    through for Carver to become a qualified SNAP beneficiary, and
    the mechanics of that? How often are you re-examined? Do folks
    come by periodically to check and make sure that you are doing
    what you are told to do on the application process? Would you
    help the Committee understand that approval process that USDA
    goes through?
        Mr. Wright. Carver Market is actually operated by a
    nonprofit ministry out of Atlanta, and so the process they went
    through was, of course, contacting USDA. They also had to have
    some coordination with the health inspectors, I believe, from
    the State of Georgia and all that. It just became a very
    laborious process in order to get all that lined up, and just
    the points of contact, not being able to get through to people,
    not having the communication relayed back to them.
        I certainly understand what you are talking about in the
    store in Florida, and, from our industry's perspective, we have
    a zero tolerance for abuse from retailer or participant in the
    program. We are not in favor of that. But in this case you had
    a nonprofit ministry that has planted themself in a community
    they are trying to revitalize, and just some sort of
    recognition to expedite that process would be appreciated. Just
    a lot of people to see, a lot of hoops to jump through, so to
    speak.
        The Chairman. All right. Could they operate their store
    without customers redeeming SNAP benefits, were they able to
    open and go into business before that?
        Mr. Wright. We were able to open the store, but, needless
    to say, with the makeup of the neighborhood, and the amount of
    SNAP residents, that was certainly economically challenging for
    the store----
        The Chairman. So, 25 percent of your business is SNAP? So
    those folks would come into the store, try to buy something,
    and the operator of the store would have to say, we are not
    ready yet?
        Mr. Wright. Yes, correct.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Mr. Wright. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. It is a bit counterintuitive that a store in
    that food desert would only have 25 percent of their business
    is SNAP, while your broader Wright Market has 31 percent. Do
    you think that SNAP beneficiaries will go there, and that will
    grow, or you think 25 percent is about right?
        Mr. Wright. Well, the Carver Market does not offer fresh
    meat. Now, they do a good job of offering fresh produce, dairy,
    milk, eggs, and a wide variety of grocery items for a small
    store, and at Wright's Market, 56 percent of our business is
    driven through fresh meat and fresh produce, with meat being a
    much bigger ring, so to speak. So that would be the difference
    between what we are able to offer, and what they are able to
    offer: 25 percent for a smaller store like Carver Market is
    pretty good.
        The Chairman. Okay. And just real quickly, on your Wright 2
    You Program, is that available to SNAP beneficiaries, as well
    as other customers?
        Mr. Wright. Yes. It is something that we just do on demand.
    We continue to hear the requests for people that don't have
    transportation to the store, so that is certainly open to
    anyone who calls for pickup.
        The Chairman. I appreciate that. Mr. Beech and Mr.
    Martincich, we had FNCS here during the 2 day review of USDA
    programs, and they were trying to walk us through how they got
    to their proposed rules, and I asked Administrator Rowe if any
    of the folks on the rule writing team had ever actually worked
    in a grocery store. And, of course, they hadn't, and so that
    may be reflective of some of the things that they are trying to
    get done in that regard.
        Can you walk us through the process a recipient goes
    through at the checkout line, is a SNAP beneficiary going into
    a Love's and unable to use that SNAP card for anything other
    than what is eligible? In other words, your electronic machines
    parse out what is and isn't SNAP eligible, so they can't buy
    food in the restaurant with their SNAP benefits. What is the
    public policy advantage to excluding travel plazas like yours,
    where they have more than 15 percent of their food sales in
    non-eligible SNAP items, what would be the possible public
    policy benefit for that?
        Mr. Martincich. That is a great question. I would have no
    idea what the rationale would be to penalize that SNAP
    beneficiary who is very well educated, and knows what to buy in
    a grocery store. And to penalize that person because I happen
    to sell hot food in another part of the store, or under one
    roof, I see absolutely no rationale to that whatsoever.
        The Chairman. Thank you, then. My time has expired. Mr.
    Peterson, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of
    people that want you guys to be the food police, and this is
    the first idea that is generated here. But I just want you to
    know some of the things that I hear from some of my colleagues,
    on the right and on the left. They think that SNAP recipients
    should not be able to buy candy, sugared soda pop, so-called
    junk food. There are people who think that no one should be
    able to use a SNAP card at a convenience store because it is
    more expensive than a grocery store. So these are things that I
    hear that are out there, without asking you, I assume that
    would just make it even more problematic to stay in the program
    if something like that happened. But it is out there, and
    people will talk about it. Even some of my constituents talk
    about it.
        One of the things that I am curious about is, apparently,
    during the Dodd-Frank negotiations, there was a provision put
    in by Senator Durbin that said that the banks can't charge SNAP
    recipients for transactions on their cards, which is kind of a
    dumb idea. Anyway, it got passed. So now, from what I can tell,
    you can't figure out how much they are charging, and who they
    are charging. So do you know how much these banks make on these
    cards? Supposedly, they can't charge the recipients, so how
    much are they charging you guys per customer, or do you guys
    know that information? Do they give that to you?
        Ms. Hanna. Sir, on the SNAP transactions, as a merchant, we
    pay a processing fee, which is an extremely low amount.
        Mr. Peterson. So what is that?
        Ms. Hanna. It would be sub-hundredths of a penny. That is
    how low it can be. And you have processors, and there are only
    two right now and that is creating a competition problem. And
    so there is a proposed 1 charge being made by one of the
    providers----
        Mr. Peterson. Right. So that would be to the store?
        Ms. Hanna. That would be to the merchant.
        Mr. Peterson. Yes.
        Ms. Hanna. Yes.
        Mr. Peterson. They supposedly can't charge the SNAP
    recipient.
        Ms. Hanna. That is correct.
        And that 1, based on a rough calculation, would bring in
    $17 million annually of revenue to this processor. That cost is
    going to drive prices up, and the customer who uses the SNAP
    benefits, and all others, will be harmed by that, from the
    increase in prices. We need more competition when it comes to
    being able to process these transactions.
        Mr. Peterson. There was a story out there that said that
    some of these banks were charging people $5 to stop payment,
    and they were figuring out some way to charge the recipients if
    they lost their card, they charge them $5. And then there was
    some other deal where they are charging them 40 if they get--I
    don't know what it is, but apparently they are getting around
    it somehow or another. Are you familiar with that?
        Ms. Hanna. No, sir, I am not familiar with there being fees
    charged by the banks on SNAP transactions. I am familiar with
    banks charging fees for other payment types that customers use
    with debit cards, but not on SNAP cards.
        Mr. Peterson. So you haven't heard any complaints from your
    customers about this, that----
        Ms. Hanna. Not on SNAP cards, sir.
        Mr. Peterson. So if they lose their card, they just----
        Ms. Hanna. They will go back and ask for another one. But
    they have not spoken to us that they are being charged by their
    agency to get another card.
        Mr. Peterson. On the chip situation, you are going to that?
    Are you changing all your credit cards to the chip?
        Ms. Hanna. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Peterson. So does that mean that these EBT processors
    are going to raise the fees on the card to pay for that?
        Ms. Hanna. I think that could be part of it. It is just
    pure speculation if that is the case, but we do know that
    putting a chip on a payment card, along with a PIN, will reduce
    fraud substantially. There was a report put out by the Federal
    Reserve several years ago that said payment cards that were
    only signature enabled had 700 percent greater chances of fraud
    being conducted on those. So as we move to an environment where
    there is more security needed in the payment space, and that
    includes the use of these SNAP cards, we are looking for
    additional technology. And I think that a chip and PIN on a
    chip added to these SNAP cards would be beneficial to the
    participants, and to the retailers that accept them.
        Mr. Peterson. I do have a short follow-up.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Peterson. So, as I understand it, most of the fraud is
    a situation where the retailer is in collusion with the
    recipient. So I don't understand where the PIN number makes a
    difference, because the recipient knows it anyway. The majority
    of the fraud is where they have to get together and do it. My
    time is out, but if you could respond to whatever is going on
    with that? Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. We will
    take that one for the record. Mr. Neugebauer, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Beech, in your
    testimony you outlined how the USDA proposal would cause most
    of the Casey stores to be ineligible for participation in SNAP.
    And many of your stores, you indicated are in small
    communities. I represent a district that has a lot of small
    communities, and somebody would have to be living in a vacuum
    if they haven't been watching what has happened in rural
    America, where we have seen the towns of rural communities
    shrink because the number of farm families have shrunk. Farmers
    are farming a lot larger tracts of land.
        In many of those communities, they have lost their auto
    dealership, they have lost their grocery store, they have lost
    their clothing store, and they are considered somewhat under-
    served. And so I guess the question that I would have to you is
    what would be the driving distance for many of your customers
    if your company was forced to quit providing SNAP benefits to
    those folks?
        Mr. Beech. Yes, that is a great question Congressman, and
    you are absolutely correct. I grew up in a small town in rural
    Iowa, and we used to have a lot more services than we do now.
    But yes, many places in the rural Midwest, our customers would
    have to drive 15 and 20 miles to the next nearest community
    that would have full services like that. We have 220 of our
    stores. We are the only provider, and we provide prepared
    foods, we are the bakery in the community, and we are the
    grocery store.
        So to have folks that are already on the program having to
    spend additional resources to drive 15 and 20 miles to redeem
    their benefits, I can't see any rationale for that, and we are
    really concerned about some of our rural customers having to go
    through this to do that.
        Mr. Neugebauer. You also testified that you keep a limited
    amount of stock in those stores, due to the ability to service
    those. So if you had to comply with this new regulation in
    keeping more stock, more items, it looks like to me that
    increases your logistic cost of having to make more runs, or
    expand those stores. Is that going to drive the prices up if
    you have to do that?
        Mr. Beech. Yes, it would clearly drive the prices up, but
    for us, we couldn't do it. We deliver once a week to 1,931
    stores, so if we would have to deliver two or three times to a
    store to meet compliance with SNAP, it is just not that large
    of a piece of our business. So it is just something that,
    physically, we wouldn't be able to do in our business model. It
    would just be too expensive, and we just don't have the space
    to have this kind of depth of stock in our stores. Our stores
    aren't big enough to do that.
        Mr. Neugebauer. If they impose this 15 percent on prepared
    food, what is that going to do to your business model?
        Mr. Beech. It makes us completely ineligible for the
    program. We sell a little bit of pizza. We are the fifth or
    sixth largest pizza retailer in the country, and so we would
    just have to drop the SNAP Program. We would not drop our hot
    foods program. It is just too integral to our business and our
    business success, so if we had to, unfortunately, make that
    choice, we would have to stay with the hot foods,
    unfortunately.
        Mr. Neugebauer. What percentage of your business is SNAP,
    average across your stores?
        Mr. Beech. It is not very large on ours. It is probably one
    or two percent.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Okay. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Scott, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I think that this rule by the Department of
    Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service is impractical, it is
    unworkable, it is offensive, it is discriminatory, and it is
    definitely draconian, and really unnecessary. And very, very
    offensive and discriminatory to rural Americans and low-income
    Americans. So this is a large swath of the American people. And
    I am really just at odds trying to figure out why is the
    Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service doing
    this?
        And so I would like to ask you, who are testifying here to
    help me with this dilemma. Clearly, here is what I think: I
    believe that the Department of Agriculture wants to stop small
    business retailers from participating in the SNAP Program. Now,
    if I am wrong, please tell me. Mr. Martincich, I apologize if I
    murdered your name there, but can you help me with this? Am I
    off base? I just don't see it. Maybe somebody can clear up for
    me why in the world is the Department of Agriculture doing
    this, and putting such hardship on the small retail business
    community, and on the very American people that need this
    service the most, those in rural America and those in low-
    income America?
        Mr. Martincich. I agree with all your words wholeheartedly,
    and I will start off with offensive. I do think it is offensive
    to that SNAP beneficiary, and it is offensive to the retailer
    also.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes.
        Mr. Martincich. At a stretch, I might give a benefit of the
    doubt. It is probably a noble cause to encourage healthy eating
    and healthy behavior. But our personal example is that has been
    changing over the last several years also. One of the biggest
    sellers in all of our stores is our fruit and vegetable cups.
    No government agency told me that I had to sell fruits and
    vegetables and put them at the front counter, but customers
    began demanding that, and we are selling a lot of it, and there
    is no regulation that told us we had to do that. So I think
    consumer behavior is changing anyway, without these draconian,
    discriminatory regulations.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes. Mr. Beech, how do you feel
    about this?
        Mr. Beech. Congressman, I totally agree with you too. I
    echo his comments. I mean, we obviously care about our
    customers' health, and give them the benefit of the doubt of
    that. But when we have some of these stocking requirements that
    are egregious and things, it just seems clear that maybe we
    don't want the small retailer in this. But, you folks did a
    good job on the farm bill, had a good compromise with some
    additional items in the stores. We can certainly live with that
    and support that, but this over-extension of the stocking
    requirements, and the change in the definitions of not having
    multiple ingredient foods, we can't have chicken and noodle
    soup in there, and macaroni and cheese, and it doesn't count
    anymore. People are trying to feed their families with this
    program, and you would think you would want to be more
    inclusive than not, so we are in total agreement with you.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My time is up in 1 minute. This really disturbs me, because
    there are sectors of our American people who are in certain
    types of situations that are no fault of their own. And when
    you take the basic necessity of life, which is food, and you
    make it harder and harder for these people to be able to do
    that, Kroger's and Publix, these large grocery stores, they are
    not in some of these communities, in the rural areas
    particularly, they have to travel to another place. In the low-
    income communities, people don't have the transportation to get
    to where they are. So it is my hope that out of this hearing,
    Mr. Chairman, that we will send a powerful message to the
    Department of Agriculture to rescind this rule.
        The Chairman. Well, David, to send that message, you will
    need to be a little more blunt. Mr. Lucas, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first I would like
    to note that one of our very articulate, bright witnesses noted
    we did a good job on the food stamp section of the farm bill,
    in a place and a time where rarely positive things are said.
    Thank you, sir.
        With that, I would like to turn to Mr. Martincich to expand
    on your comments. Your perspective in your opening testimony
    was the customer's perspective. Do you have any idea how many
    of your SNAP customers at the travel plazas tend to be highway
    travelers, as opposed to local citizens who live in an area in
    close proximity to the facility? I am assuming a good and
    efficient business that you have examined, studied, analyzed
    your customer base. Tell me about that. Who is passing through,
    and who is local?
        Mr. Martincich. Absolutely. There are very few traveling
    public or truck drivers eligible for SNAP, or using SNAP
    benefits in our stores. The vast majority are local, close
    residents. Which, again, is why it would be a tremendous shame
    for us to have to turn down that customer who is walking to our
    truckstop, maybe catching a ride to our truckstop. But very few
    are really over-the-road travelers.
        Mr. Lucas. Several witnesses have mentioned the hot food
    issue. Since your locations often have both convenience stores
    and restaurants, have you noticed the SNAP customers getting
    confused, or mistakenly believing they can redeem their SNAP
    benefits at the restaurant side of the equation?
        Mr. Martincich. Never. I think those SNAP recipients are
    very well educated on what they can purchase. Not once, in any
    of our experiences, have we seen a SNAP eligible customer try
    to purchase something that is a hot food item. Again, it is a
    clear distinction, because there is a convenience store on this
    side, and a quick service restaurant, or a sit down restaurant
    on that side.
        Mr. Lucas. And you have convenience stores that still just
    have non-restaurant options too, right, in the smaller
    communities?
        Mr. Martincich. Absolutely.
        Mr. Lucas. So you have both models?
        Mr. Martincich. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. Okay. So are you able to draw any conclusions
    about Love's stores? The trend to do a lot of SNAP business
    versus Love's stores that do minimal amounts of SNAP business,
    comparing the nature of your facilities?
        Mr. Martincich. Certainly in the rural communities, where
    there are other limited options, and you will be familiar with
    quite a few of those in Oklahoma, and it is really around the
    local residencies. It is around the local neighborhoods. So if
    I am extremely isolated, and with no local population within
    maybe 10 or 15 miles of my store, I won't hardly get any SNAP
    recipients in there.
        Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, I would just note, as
    I yield back, the comments by the Ranking Member about the PIN
    versus chip versus stripe question. While that is probably more
    of a jurisdiction of a different committee, a lot of that
    pertains about who is responsible for the fraud issue. Is it
    the retailer, is it the card issuer? Not just SNAP, but all
    forms of credit cards. And that is something that we have to
    sort out in this body, because right now there is a great
    debate over who is most responsible for security, and who is
    being stuck by the bill, and in many cases it is a substantial
    issue. Not in SNAP, but in other credit card issues, the fraud
    factor. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. McGovern, 5
    minutes.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much. I want to thank you all
    for being here. I certainly appreciate the fact that SNAP
    retailers play a critical role in making sure that food is
    available to those in need. And many of our constituents in
    both rural and urban areas lack access to larger grocery
    stores. And while we would all love to see large supermarkets
    in every community in America, that is just not a reality. And,
    as we have heard from our witnesses today, convenience stores
    are frequently the only source of groceries in some
    communities, and are, at times, the only stores that accepts
    SNAP benefits in a particular community.
        And one of the things that is under-appreciated, I am sad
    to say, in this Congress is the fact that a large number of
    people on SNAP work. They work for a living. But, they work
    non-traditional hours, or are forced to work several jobs just
    to make ends meet, and these individuals often have to shop for
    their food at kind of odd hours, and that is where you
    oftentimes are the only avenue for them to get food.
        I sympathize with the goal of making healthier foods more
    available to people, and helping people make better choices in
    terms of what they buy. If we were really interested in that,
    we would examine the fact that the SNAP benefit in and of
    itself is so inadequate, that it really does limit an
    individual's ability to be able to buy the healthiest food. But
    I also have concerns with proposals that would limit the
    ability of smaller format retailers to participate in the SNAP
    Program, which would prevent SNAP recipients from access to
    food.
        Mr. Beech, you talk a lot about restrictions in USDA's
    proposed rule that would force stores out of the SNAP Program.
    Would the proposed rule as currently drafted eliminate access
    to food for any SNAP beneficiaries, and would it make hunger
    worse in our communities? And the reason why I raise that is
    because, while I am sympathetic to the impact that this might
    have on the retailers, I am most sympathetic about the negative
    impact it would have on people who are just struggling to put
    food on the table.
        Mr. Beech. Your question is a good one, Congressman. I
    think, quite accurately, that is our biggest concern, is we
    want to make sure that the folks that need the program can
    still get it. It clearly does have the opportunity to increase
    hunger concerns. As I mentioned in my testimony, we have 220 of
    our stores where we are the only provider. There are a number
    of those communities where the other provider might be just
    another convenience store.
        Mr. McGovern. Right.
        Mr. Beech. Many of these communities don't have grocery
    stores. So it is a big problem when you have communities in
    this country that they can't redeem their benefits, and so they
    have to make a separate trip to do that. So making available
    opportunities and places to redeem their benefits is a good
    thing. I think it has that potential.
        Mr. McGovern. So USDA tells us that they intend to allow
    waivers for certain stores if access is compromised. How do you
    think that that would impact store participation?
        Mr. Beech. Well, there are a number of concerns about
    waivers. We would want 1,931 waivers. And then every other
    convenience store chain would want those as well. And if you
    don't give out waivers to everybody, you have the competitive
    issues. Do you give it to one competitor in a town, and not the
    other competitor in town? Who gets it? Who gets the waiver? So
    I am just not sure this program is designed to give out
    thousands and thousands of waivers. It just, to me, doesn't
    make sense. We have to have the fundamental rules of the
    program, and the waivers should be what they are, waivers, used
    sparingly.
        Mr. McGovern. As we speak about access to food, and since
    you are all here, it is important to also look at proposals
    that would undermine the SNAP Program and cut benefits for
    families living in poverty. Ms. Hanna, some have suggested that
    we block grant the SNAP Program, turning more responsibility
    for the administrative decisions to states. There is a
    Republican budget that would cut the program by $150 billion
    over 10 years. Do you have concerns with such proposals, and if
    so, what would those concerns be?
        Ms. Hanna. I do, because under that scenario, by putting
    that back in there, now we are going to lose the ubiquity that
    the national program has. Because with a state, or any state,
    and a different state having different requirements, having
    different food lists, it is going to make it much harder for
    the SNAP participant to make sure, first, that they are buying
    the right things when they are going to the stores; but second,
    it is going to make it much harder on the retailer and the
    merchant to program, and to train the cashiers to work with
    those customers to make sure that they are making the healthy
    food choices, and they are getting what are eligible products.
    So it is something that would be very difficult on the entire
    system. And I don't think it would be something that would be
    good for the system.
        Right now we have a good system that is ubiquitous, it is
    across all the states. As a SNAP participant, if they have to
    go from one state to another because of some sort of disaster,
    or some sort of other event, they know that they can take those
    benefits, and that they can shop in another store in that
    state, and get the same benefits. But if this is administered
    on a state-by-state basis, that is not going to happen. In
    addition, states share information regarding fraud. If the
    states are allowed to administer this, then how are they going
    to manage their cross-border fraud, and look at that
    information? It is not going to be the same anymore.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you. That is a very powerful argument
    against block granting. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Gibbs,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I don't use all my
    time, I will use my balance of time to yield to Mr. Scott if he
    needs more time.
        I appreciate the comments, and there is just one thing, he
    asked a question, Mr. Chairman, he was speculating about the
    reason USDA was doing this is to put the small business out of
    business. I don't think that is it. I think what it is, it goes
    back to what the Ranking Member said. It is about the food
    police. And this is analogous to the school lunch program we
    are seeing, where one size fits all out of Washington, D.C.
    policy, they know best.
        And I have to tell you, what we need to do is send some of
    these people out in our remote areas, like the western states.
    I have a son that lives out in remote, eastern Oregon, and a
    couple years ago he was living in northwestern Wyoming, in a
    remote area, and you literally had to drive 30 miles to buy a
    loaf of bread. So all the comments the panel has made about
    access and availability is absolutely true, but people here in
    Washington, D.C., inside the Inner Belt here, don't understand
    that, and don't have a clue.
        And so that is really what it is about. It is more about
    the food police, and Washington knows best. Moving forward, I
    just want to make that point that this rule needs to be
    rescinded, because it is going to hurt people in the remote
    areas. And, Mr. Beech, your excellent points on the question
    about, you have 200 stores would you have to quit using the
    SNAP Program, and that doesn't account for when there are other
    convenience stores.
        So I kind of got the feeling, Mr. Beech, your stores aren't
    true convenience stores. In Ohio it is more of a general-type
    store, at least because you go out in these rural areas where
    our son lives, there are no chain stores out there. There is,
    but the general stores in small towns there have more things
    that you don't have in a small town in Ohio.
        Mr. Beech. Yes. Virtually all of our stores are a little
    bit bigger model, but we have an extremely competitive and
    broad food program. So we make our own pizzas, many of our
    stores have subs, we have donuts. So in many small communities,
    we are the local grocery store, and we are the bakery, and we
    are the restaurant. So we do all of those in one, and we are
    proud of it, and have very good products. But that has been our
    niche. We grew up in rural Iowa and Missouri, and so those are
    the customers we serve.
        Mr. Gibbs. And it is absolutely right that the idea is the
    market is dictating what the needs are in those locales. It
    shouldn't be Washington dictating that. And I did want to say,
    since the introductions that Kroger Company is headquartered in
    the great Buckeye State of Ohio, in Cincinnati, and it is a
    great chain, so I wanted to make that point. I appreciate the
    panel. And my time I have left, I would yield to Mr. Scott, if
    he has any more thoughts.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. You are kind.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Graham, for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
    much to all the witnesses today. My question is actually
    directed at Mr. Wright. I live, and represent, the most rural
    district in Florida, pretty much the entire panhandle of the
    State of Florida. We have a huge food desert, and I go to
    Love's all the time, by the way. And I am interested in and
    thank you for your innovative approach to serving your rural
    community. And we have great nutrition and food access issues
    in my district. I would just like for you to expand on what you
    have done how maybe we can take some of your innovative
    approaches and use them in north Florida to help the people of
    north Florida. So thank you very much.
        Mr. Wright. Well, thank you. Yes, there are just plain and
    simple communities that cannot support a brick and mortar
    store, especially something full service where you are
    processing fresh meat, and those type of things. With all due
    respect to Mr. Beech, Casey's does a fabulous job in some of
    these places, but even in areas like you are talking about, it
    is a challenge to even have something like that.
        We just believe with technology today that mobile and
    delivery is going to be the way to solve these. Whether it is
    to someone's home, or preferably it could be a central
    location, some of the rural community where there is still some
    sort of gathering place where there is some sort of community
    center, or possibly a church, or something like that. So I
    believe that using technology would be a great way for people
    to order online, and for us to be able to get these fresh
    products to them in these communities that just can't support a
    brick and mortar store. And I actually have been contacted by
    somebody from your area about trying to do something like that,
    so----
        Ms. Graham. I am not surprised about that. I have a
    wonderful team, and she is taking notes in the back. Which is
    the purpose of these hearings, right, Mr. Chairman?
        In rural communities we often have challenges with even
    having access to the Internet. Is this something that you have
    moved forward with mobile apps, and those types of things, that
    consumers could potentially use in rural areas?
        Mr. Wright. Yes, that would be correct. And, again, there
    are two things that you face in the issue we are discussing.
    One is just access to technology to order. The other would be
    that possibly we reach, especially, some of the elderly that
    don't have the computer skills to do that. That really is where
    churches, and some organizations like that, can come in and
    fill that gap, and have access to that, or help someone do
    that. I think that would be, again, a great way.
        And we are very blessed and fortunate in our community to
    have a very strong faith-based community, and a number of
    outreach ministries. I have seen some things in the
    Gainesville, area, not far from you, the Casey family programs
    who have worked with the Partnership for Strong Families, and
    built some outreach centers, some community resource centers,
    in some rural areas. A model like that would be a great way for
    having a central point to order, and also have some help to go
    through the process to order.
        Ms. Graham. I don't know how much time I have left. I love
    this new system, Mr. Chairman. Do you find that those that you
    are serving, are they ordering and requesting fruits and
    vegetables, meats, and that type of thing?
        Mr. Wright. Well, back to my opening comments, we are just
    now getting into the process, but we can see it already.
    Certainly there are several groups that we have had a lot of
    interest in online ordering delivery. Certainly there are
    people in their lives that are busy, that is one. We have heard
    from a number of elderly, so we run our shuttle service. We
    will come to a person's home and pick them up, and bring them
    to the store, and then return them home. So we solved some of
    the issues like that. We have heard a tremendous amount of our
    elderly that getting out of the house and going to the grocery
    store is just not an option anymore physically.
        We also have heard from a number of people whose parents
    are in areas where they don't live anymore. And then we hear
    people in the rural areas that have access. So it is a wide
    variety. We are getting into this program now, but based on the
    responses that we have seen, I believe it is a great
    opportunity for us to really solve a lot of the issues with
    access to fresh foods without having to have a brick and mortar
    store where it doesn't work out.
        Ms. Graham. Well, I am sure my time is up now. The Chairman
    is used to this with me. But thank you very, very much. I
    appreciate what you have done, and, again, I appreciate all of
    the panel for being here today. Thank you, and I yield back
    whatever time I don't have.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady had 3 seconds left.
        Ms. Graham. All right.
        The Chairman. Mr. DesJarlais, 5 minutes.
        Mr. DesJarlais. I thank the Chairman, and certainly thank
    you to the panel for attending here today, and helping us deal
    with the many problems that our food stamp program faces. What
    originally was a program aimed at improving the diets of low-
    income households has ballooned into an $80 billion a year
    government handout. And while the food stamp program,
    officially known as SNAP, was premised on good intentions, in
    reality studies have shown it has served to halter the economic
    mobility of recipients, and further compound the hardships that
    they face.
        During the Obama Administration the SNAP recipient
    population has nearly doubled. This drastic increase of
    participants has put a strain on the program that was already
    experiencing budgetary hardships due to the rampant waste,
    fraud, and abuse. There is no question that we must address the
    systemic failures of the SNAP Program if we want to ensure that
    it remains viable for both current beneficiaries and future
    generations. In fact, if we do nothing, and allow SNAP to go
    bankrupt, those who truly rely on these benefits will be
    affected most severely.
        That is why, in 2013 and 2014, when considering the farm
    bill, this Committee tried to separate the agricultural
    provisions from the unrelated food stamp program. Our
    legislation, H.R. 3102, would have allowed us to specifically
    address the deficiencies contained in the SNAP Program in a
    bipartisan manner. For example, H.R. 3102 would have eliminated
    the culture of dependency with the food stamp program by
    preventing states from issuing work requirement waivers for
    able-bodied adult recipients. Those who have the ability to
    work should not be able to collect benefits intended for those
    who cannot.
        H.R. 3102 would have also allowed for states to drug test
    SNAP applicants, and cut off funds to those who are abusing
    drugs, rather than trying to find meaningful employment. It
    also contained my legislation, the SNAP Act, which eliminated
    bonuses paid by the Federal Government to states for signing up
    food stamp recipients. It is ludicrous that we actually give
    states taxpayer funded awards merely for signing up additional
    food stamp recipients. But most importantly, this bill would
    have cut food stamp spending by $40 billion to ensure the long-
    term sustainability of the SNAP Program. For those people who
    were likely abusing the program, we estimated that about 14
    million would have come off of the food stamp rolls, and likely
    would no longer have qualified.
        The House of Representatives ultimately passed H.R. 3102,
    which I was proud to support, but, unfortunately, the Senate
    did not act, and as a result we are left with a bill that
    combined the agriculture and food stamp provisions, and lacked
    these meaningful reforms. As a result, I could not support this
    legislation. It is my hope that we have another opportunity to
    address many issues contained in the SNAP Program. We owe it to
    the taxpayers, and we owe it to the beneficiaries. There is no
    doubt that we are a kind and caring nature that takes care of
    our own, and all we ask is for those receiving government
    assistance to do their part as well. And, really, I just wanted
    to thank you guys for coming here to answer our questions, and
    we will continue to work on this, and make sure the program
    exists for those who really need it. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Ashford, 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Ashford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for having this hearing today. This is very
    interesting for me, and for all of us, because it really gets
    to many of the questions that arise in rural America, and
    certainly in Nebraska. I appreciate Mr. Beech, and Casey's, and
    all of what you have said is absolutely true. We rely on
    Casey's throughout our state. You make a major contribution to
    our small communities.
        It is interesting, in western Nebraska we have a town
    called Cody, which is a town of 300 people, and they did not
    have even a Casey's, not that Casey's is low on the totem pole,
    but did not have a Casey's. And so the local high school in
    Cody actually opened a grocery store, and the students do
    everything. They do the marketing, they do the buying, and
    purchase local products, as well as more standardized products.
    And it kind of reflects the dilemma, and the concerns that we
    have in our state.
        Rural poverty is something we talk about in this Committee
    a lot. There is no question that it exists. It is not just an
    urban problem. It is a rural problem, and you have reflected
    that, all of you, in your testimonies, and so I appreciate the
    Chairman really reflecting on this. And there are lots of
    options. I appreciated Mr. Wright's comments on the creative
    thinking for the future, because it seems to me that there are
    creative ways to these kinds of things. And organizations like
    yours, who are larger, who have the resources to invest in new
    technologies, or new ways of getting food to people that need
    it, and having it paid for, obviously, in an expeditious and
    efficient manner. That is going to come from your
    organizations.
        And it is going to come, not as said by some of the points
    made by other Committee Members, it is going to come through
    your own initiative. It is not going to come because government
    says to do it, or whatever. You are going to figure that out
    yourself. I totally believe that, and that is how most
    Nebraskans feel. I am not sure who is making more points. Our
    family came to Nebraska in the 1850s. We were in the clothing
    business. We had little stores, and big stores, in Iowa and
    near Omaha, our family has seen the changes in rural Nebraska
    and western Iowa.
        And it was mentioned earlier, literally the drying up of
    family owned small businesses in all of our towns. And you are
    from Iowa, and you know that, certainly in Nebraska. We started
    out in a little town called Homer in 1862, actually, with a
    small grocery/mercantile store, so my entire family history has
    been engaged in that kind of business. I get it. And I really
    do appreciate this testimony, and this conversation, because it
    really gets to the core of how rural America is going to look
    in the next 50 years.
        I do just have one question. Just so I am absolutely clear
    in my mind about this, Mr. Beech, because Casey's is a big
    player in Nebraska, and it is an important part of rural
    Nebraska. But I do want to ask you, just for the record, if
    this were to go into effect, are you telling me that, in
    Nebraska, for example, it would be unlikely that you would be
    able to offer food stamp services?
        Mr. Beech. Yes. The way the rule is written right now, we
    have 150 stores, basically, in Nebraska, and proud to be there,
    and a number of communities in your district, but basically the
    hot foods provision knocks out virtually all our stores. And
    then even if you could get over the hot foods, we couldn't sell
    any pizza, or we couldn't sell donuts, and hot sub sandwiches
    and things. The stocking requirements, with not being able to
    use multi-ingredients, and the variety, and the depth of
    stocking, having to have six of the products on the counters,
    we couldn't do it. So we would not offer SNAP benefits at all
    in Nebraska if this rule stays as-is.
        Mr. Ashford. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, this is not a
    good thing for Nebraska at all. It is not a good thing for our
    recipients, nor for our state. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you all for being here. And we have obviously got this
    rule that needs to be reversed. I think that the goal of many
    is to stop the abuses in the system where, if you have a liquor
    store, for example, that is receiving--or turning in a
    tremendous amount of vouchers for food stamps, and you know
    that it is just not possible for them to be running that much
    through that store, how do we get those bad operators, if you
    will, out of the system? How do we get the operators out that
    are charging $10 for a gallon of milk, and then giving a
    lottery ticket with it, if you will?
        And I see you shaking your head, the kind of people I am
    talking about, and I don't think there is any better group to
    help write the rule that gets those bad players out of the
    market more so than those of you who are here sitting at the
    table with us today. And I just wonder, has the agency been
    willing to listen on the rule, and the suggestions that you
    have for the rule? I mean, we share that common goal, to get
    the crooks out of the business. Have they been willing to
    listen to your suggestions on how you would do that?
        Mr. Martincich. I may volunteer that, if you don't mind?
    The 2014 Farm Bill did address the fraudulent issues, and
    talked about point of sale, so probably everybody here
    implemented point of sale requirements. The USDA has chosen, up
    until now, to not enforce those fraud provisions, but the 2014
    Farm Bill did address a lot of the fraudulent issues.
        And, if I may share just a little bit on behalf of the
    truckstop industry. We talked throughout today that it is
    important that it our responsibility to encourage more options
    for SNAP beneficiaries, and not less. So I would attest to what
    Mr. Beech has said about Casey's. We would evaluate that in the
    400 stores in our 40 states. We would clearly not be able to be
    a SNAP qualified store in our 400 locations either.
        Mr. Beech. I can address that briefly too. Obviously we
    have a system in place to make sure that people can't buy
    different items than they are supposed to with SNAP. But I
    already think you have rules in place that help with fraud, and
    you put something in the last farm bill that gave them an
    ability to have a pilot program to start enforcing that better.
    So we are in complete support as an industry to stop fraud. We
    believe wasted taxpayer dollars: nobody should be doing that.
    We encourage anything you can do to stop fraudulent actors, and
    get those out of our business. But they are already there, they
    just need to be enforced.
        Mr. Wright. Our association will continue to submit
    comments to USDA about the ways to do this, in agreement with
    my colleagues here. Things like that, they hurt the whole
    program. Everybody up here would be totally in agreement that
    we don't want it wasted in any shape, form, or fashion. You are
    back to the people that do need it, back to the elderly and
    people like that.
        I will tell you, from my own experience in Atlanta, in a
    store we opened up, there was a small store there. I am not
    saying that anything was wrong, like that, but when we came in
    and offered a better option to that, that store closed.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes. Thank you for doing the
    mission work in Atlanta. That is my home state as well.
        Ms. Hanna. And we work very closely with FMI, and we submit
    comments through them. When there are opportunities to talk to
    the USDA we will, and do so. But I agree with all my colleagues
    here, none of us want fraud, and want bad actors, and criminals
    in our stores, because it brings a risk that none of us want to
    everyone else. And we don't want fraud, so we are open to
    discussions to make it a better system.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And FMI, being the Food
    Marketing Institute, for people who are watching and may not
    know that. I do think it would help us if we could get those
    suggestions on how we get those bad actors out of there. And
    maybe, through the Committee, we can make sure that the USDA
    takes those into account. So I do appreciate your bringing up
    the fraud provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill. We want to make
    sure that we are getting the benefits to the people who need
    them, but we want to make sure that those benefits go to what
    they are supposed to be used for, which is nutrition, not
    alcohol, and cigarettes, and lottery tickets. Thanks for being
    here.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Davis,
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a quick question
    for Ms. Hanna. And thank you all for your time here today.
    Actually, before I get to your question, Ms. Hanna, Mr. Beech,
    you grew up in Ankeny, Iowa? Were you there----
        Mr. Beech. Yes, I live in Ankeny now.
        Mr. Davis. Did you grow up there?
        Mr. Beech. Yes, I grew up in northern Iowa.
        Mr. Davis. Northern Iowa? Okay. Well, I used to live in Des
    Moines, and I remember when Ankeny got destroyed by the tornado
    in the 1970s, so I didn't know if you were affected by that.
        Mr. Beech. No, not at that time. But, yes, Ankeny has had a
    couple.
        Mr. Davis. Yes. Thank you for your taco pizza recipe. I
    have two cases in the hotel. Don't change it. If you do, we
    will have you back here.
        Mr. Beech. Yes.
        Mr. Davis. Ms. Hanna, serious question. I know SNAP has
    completely transitioned to an EBT type system, but WIC, the
    Women, Infants, and Children's Program, still uses paper
    vouchers. How does the administration of SNAP compare to WIC as
    a retailer, especially one that is in slightly larger
    communities, like my hometown of 11,000?
        Ms. Hanna. So the WIC Program is in transition, and I
    believe they have been given a date of 2020 to move to
    electronic payment cards. But in today's----
        Mr. Davis. Is that fast enough?
        Ms. Hanna. It is really not fast enough. It really needs to
    move faster. Because what we have seen is that, when you are
    dealing with a paper voucher, which is very nondescript on what
    is eligible for purchase and what is not, it creates much
    confusion with these mothers who are trying to buy nutritious
    items for their children and their babies.
        Mr. Davis. And they have impatient customers waiting behind
    them in line and they then may leave without the food that they
    need to feed their child because of this.
        Ms. Hanna. That is correct.
        Mr. Davis. Do you attribute it to the lack of the EBT card,
    and the ease of access?
        Ms. Hanna. Yes, I think that is a big part of it. And we
    actually did this several years ago. We gave a voucher to many
    of our leadership, and sent them out to a store, and we said,
    go see if you can figure out what you are supposed to buy with
    this. And they were all stunned, because it is very
    nondescript. And you bring it up to the register, and you scan
    it, well, no, that is not eligible. So when they moved to a
    card, it is very specific, and then what is eligible on that
    card does go through the system appropriately. So moving to a
    more electronic system faster for the participants in the WIC
    program would be a good thing for all.
        Mr. Davis. So your message to all the bureaucrats who sit
    in the concrete buildings out here at the United States
    Department of Agriculture and others is work faster than 2020,
    make it easier on those who need the benefits the most, let us
    make sure that the benefits go to those who deserve them and
    let us not cause any more delays and confusion in the line,
    which is very pressure packed anyway.
        Ms. Hanna. That is correct.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. I will yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Kuster, 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding this hearing. And I just want to pick up where Mr.
    Davis left off. I come from a rural district in New Hampshire,
    the western part of the state, a lot of small towns. And we
    have talked in this Committee before, in particular during the
    farm bill, about food deserts. Typically thought of in urban
    areas, but I have food deserts in rural areas. It is a
    heartbreak, because, honestly, if people's lives were not so
    busy, and if you went back a generation, this was the part of
    the country where people grew their own food. But we know what
    lives are like now, with a single mom, and a couple of kids,
    and trying to pick up, and drop off, and get where you need to
    be. So we have communities where it would be a half hour round
    trip in the winter on bumpy roads to get to a full on grocery
    store with all the fresh fruits and vegetables that we want to
    be encouraging healthy families to eat.
        And I apologize, I was at the Veterans Committee, so I
    haven't heard from all of you, but I am going to let anybody
    dive in. My question is this distinction, and I am not sure I
    even understand what the original policy was about, but both on
    the processed food, food that you heat, I am talking about. I
    want people to eat healthy food, but food that you heat, how
    has that regulation gotten in the way of getting people the
    food that they need? And then also, if anybody could speak to
    the convenience store food, and particularly how we can
    encourage, and help you to get more fresh fruits and vegetables
    into the convenience store setting. I know bananas are making a
    big comeback in convenience stores, but is there something else
    that we could do to help? And I agree with Mr. Davis, let us
    get the food to the people who need it in the most timely way.
    So any commentary on those two rules, and what we could do to
    change them?
        Mr. Beech. Yes. I would talk a little bit about the first
    part of that, the part where we have 220 of our stores are in
    rural areas, we haven't been able to understand the dichotomy
    of why you sell hot foods, and you wouldn't be able to
    participate. I understand how it comes up in the rule. It is in
    the definition of what is called a retail store. So it says if
    you sell more than 15 percent, then you are not a store, so you
    would not be eligible. So that is how----
        Ms. Kuster. Well, they need to drive around my district,
    because these are not restaurants. This is just the only place
    to get it, it may be a braised chicken.
        Mr. Beech. Exactly right.
        Ms. Kuster. It could be healthy. It can be healthy but it
    is a hot meal, and maybe it is the only hot meal that day.
        Mr. Beech. Exactly right. And, again, for single moms that
    come in, they can pick up bread and milk at our stores, and
    maybe bring home a pizza for supper as well.
        Ms. Kuster. Yes, it gives them another half an hour to help
    with homework.
        Mr. Beech. Yes, that is exactly right.
        Ms. Kuster. I was a working mom. I know this problem.
        Mr. Beech. Yes. And we couldn't agree with you more. So
    that is one of the big concerns. And then the multi-ingredient
    foods are not eligible to count as your stocking requirements.
    So if you have chicken noodle soup, or if you have macaroni and
    cheese, we don't get any credit for those. They have to be
    single ingredient. And so, when people are trying to feed their
    family, many of our items are multi-ingredient that people can
    eat, frozen lasagnas, or stews, or things like that. But,
    again, they don't count in the stocking requirements under the
    new rules, which, again, causes small format stores to have
    major concerns.
        Ms. Kuster. Thank you. And I know my time is probably close
    to up. Any comment on the fresh fruits and vegetables?
        Mr. Wright. One thing that Carver Market in Atlanta was
    successful with is doing two for one SNAP bucks that were
    underwritten by private foundations. Before they started a
    program, nine percent of the SNAP benefits usage bought fresh
    produce. After they moved to that, it was 53 percent in there.
    So, at the end of the day, these are families who are trying to
    feed themselves, feed their families, and get as much as they
    can. But that was an avenue where it was a very efficient use
    of resources. It was underwritten by private organizations that
    were very interested in health and wellness, and it very much
    moved the needle in these areas in order to get people to start
    looking at fresh fruits and vegetables.
        Ms. Kuster. Wow. What is interesting is we did the two for
    one SNAP benefit at the farmers' markets, which is hugely
    successful in my district, both to expand the farmers' markets
    and encourage local growers, but also for the health and well-
    being of the beneficiaries. But, I will get my team to look
    into expanding that. So thank you very much, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr.
    Crawford, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wright, it
    sounds like your geography is an awful lot like my district. I
    have 30 counties, mostly rural, and the irony of our district,
    it is one of the most productive ag regions in the world, and
    yet we have a lot of food insecurity. But I like your idea,
    your shuttle service, online ordering, home delivery services.
    And they sound like really good programs that is geared toward
    reaching out to these communities that have limited access.
    Talk about some of the challenges you have had implementing
    those programs, and are you able to partner with some
    charitable organizations in the community to help offset your
    costs?
        Mr. Wright. Yes. The first thing would be just the ability
    to take SNAP through mobile, would be the biggest thing. That
    is not an option right now for us, so that would be the first
    step, to do that. And, yes, improving on what we have seen in
    Atlanta with the foundations, back to my comments about some of
    the faith-based initiatives out there, there are certainly
    people that would help expedite the process, as far as the cost
    to get food to some of these places.
        The Congresswoman over here said something about access to
    computers and technology. That is another issue that we believe
    private groups, whether it be faith-based, whether it be a
    foundation or something like that can be a great help in order
    to provide the resources that people could order online. And to
    your comments, they are just areas that are rural, and a
    physical store is just not going to be an option out there.
        Mr. Crawford. Mr. Beech, let me direct this to you. And we
    have Casey's in my district, and I appreciate the services you
    provide. By offering groceries in your store, you allow a lot
    of convenience and accessibility in rural communities that
    might not otherwise have access, but how do you keep your
    prices competitive with larger grocery markets, or are you able
    to?
        Mr. Beech. Well, thanks for the kind words. Yes, we pride
    ourselves that we have our own distribution system, so we think
    our prices are extremely competitive on those items. They may
    be a couple cents higher on some items, but, again, that goes
    back to the stocking requirement provision in the law.
    Convenience stores don't stock six and seven items at a time,
    because we don't have the space, so we only have one or two. So
    we have to have distribution on one and two items, as opposed
    to a case load. So our distribution is a little bit more
    expensive in that regard as an industry, but we are very
    competitive, we think, with our friends in the grocery store
    chain, and don't think that is a concern regarding this
    program.
        Mr. Crawford. Let me switch gears just a little bit. You
    talked about the point of sale system that you use, which
    differentiates what products are SNAP eligible and what
    products are not. How are those items differentiated at the
    checkout? Can a cashier, hypothetically, override the system?
    Or how does a SNAP customer go about paying if they are buying
    both eligible and ineligible products?
        Mr. Beech. Well, our system will specifically talk to them.
    It will say, this is eligible, this is not, and so then you
    will have to take that item, and then they will have to pay a
    second transaction on that. So it physically won't ring that
    up.
        Mr. Crawford. Okay. Is that a proprietary point of sale?
        Mr. Beech. No, I think it is pretty well in the industry.
        Mr. Crawford. Is it?
        Mr. Beech. These guys are shaking their heads. I think
    everybody has this in the industry, and it is fairly common to
    have that. And you have just got to keep up with your products,
    do a new price book, to make sure that is the case. But it is
    not proprietary, no.
        Mr. Crawford. Okay. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. LaMalfa, 5
    minutes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wright, I am
    sorry, I also was in a previous committee, Natural Resources,
    and didn't get to hear everything beforehand. You mentioned a
    couple times, since I have heard you talking about having
    charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, be able to
    be of assistance in this, could you expound on how far and wide
    that role could be? Because hearing you say that, seems to me
    it gives more flexibility, has probably more accountability
    than a bureaucracy that is more 9:00 to 5:00, and can probably
    help people more.
        I remember my first term here, when we first started the
    discussion on the farm bill, and the food stamp portion of the
    program, I mentioned that, and I got yelled at by the press for
    the next 2 or 3 years, saying we wanted to just turn it all
    over. But, it seems to me that I am hearing you say it could
    add an important component in helping to manage the program, or
    even be a bigger part of it. Would you expound on what you see
    as, right now, or potential in the future, you mentioned
    delivery as well. Can these organizations be part of a delivery
    system too? So please tell me what you think in the real world
    on how they could be more helpful, or take a greater role.
        Mr. Wright. In Atlanta, the store we work with, Carver
    Market, is owned by a faith-based nonprofit ministry, so there
    is an example of someone who actually did a brick and mortar
    store. You continue to see organizations at Auburn University,
    next door. You have the Hunger Solutions Institute, and a large
    outreach from that. Plenty of faith-based organizations,
    churches in rural communities, and stuff like that. So there
    are a number of resources that can come in to assist in some of
    these areas.
        I think that, especially in our area, and I will say this
    just about the SNAP Program in general, we work very hard in
    our community in Opelika to help try to move people to self-
    sustainability, and we work very hard in this industry to do
    the same thing. And so our independent grocers are located in
    every district you all have. In our own community, I have tried
    to work with our city leaders and faith-based organizations,
    and we have done a good job to try to get people, again, into
    self-sustainability, but faith-based becomes a big part of that
    as we try to make connections in the community. You try to
    build relationships, you try to find out what is going on with
    people and their families that have those discussions of how
    they got there.
        Most all the people that we see using SNAP today are people
    that are trying. There are certainly people that do the wrong
    thing, on the retailer side, and also on the participant side,
    but most of the people we see in our store are trying very
    hard. And so it becomes a part where the faith-based
    organizations, or community organizations, or universities, or
    private foundations can come to the table and help, for lack of
    a better term, bridge this gap between having to have benefits
    and support in someone's life, and move that to a point of
    self-sustainability out there. We still have plenty of people
    in our country that they are, whether they are disabled,
    whether they are elderly, or something like that, don't need
    our help.
        So overall, the program is good, but whether it is our
    industry, whether it is faith-based or foundations, all the
    people who are coming to the table are trying to make this
    better. And SNAP is a good program, and between our industry,
    there is a great push in our industry on health and wellness.
    Our consumer goods companies are very much trying to make
    products healthier. We are all working collectively together.
    Industry, retailers, communities are trying to work together to
    make things better for our country, but SNAP is, for lack of a
    better term, that safety net, that bridge in there. And so we
    can----
        Mr. LaMalfa. But it is one of them. It is called the
    Supplemental Nutrition Program. There are a lot of them, so we
    kind of have to remember we are not relying completely on that
    one.
        Mr. Wright. Right.
        Mr. LaMalfa. And I appreciate that. Do you see that, again,
    Mr. Crawford mentioned, on the ability to get food to people
    that these organizations that aren't the government, and aren't
    the stores, would have a greater role in delivering, like you
    said, the disabled, or elderly and such. Is that a bigger and
    bigger piece coming, where you have grocery delivery?
        Mr. Wright. Yes. I think that for us, in our own market,
    and the customer base that we serve, we have seen that, as we
    introduce online shopping and delivery in our business, that is
    a lot of the comments we got from people looking for help.
    Either elderly that can't get out, access to food in rural
    communities, there is somebody 30 miles away from us. But that
    is----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Do you see efficiencies in that too? I mean,
    can they make----
        Mr. Wright. Well----
        Mr. LaMalfa. My time is up. All right, sir.
        Mr. Wright. Yes. And back to our earlier discussion, if you
    start going 30 miles away, there has to be some sort of central
    point that we can deliver a number of things to.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, makes sense.
        Mr. Wright. And so if you have a church, or community, or
    faith-based organization that can serve as that central hub to
    help with the cost of us getting that product out there, then
    that is where the organizations you are referring to really can
    come to the table and help supplement it.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. Lujan
    Grisham, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
    the panel here today. Everyone on this Committee is always
    happy and supportive to hear about collaboration and private
    partnerships that give us opportunities to take the resources
    that we are providing that are part of the safety net, and to
    make sure that we are giving those beneficiaries as many
    opportunities as we can. In particular, the Fresh Savings
    Program is great. I do the SNAP Challenge every time that is
    offered to Members of Congress. And the only thing I could
    afford to buy, if I was going to have sufficient food for the
    week on $1.50 a meal at the grocery store was a banana. And
    everything else was processed food because it lasts longer, and
    you get bigger quantities. So, really, trying to figure out,
    through the eyes of a grocery store, how you can do that
    better, and how to really know your store, and, actually, to
    know the folks in the store, who are very helpful, usually. In
    addition, I really appreciate that Kroger and AARP are doing
    tours, so that you do have those relationships.
        I used to be the Secretary of Health and the Secretary of
    Aging. And while I am a huge supporter of the Older Americans
    Act programs, including their meal programs, which are either
    congregate meals at senior centers or home delivered meals,
    there are huge waiting lists. There are lots of problems
    currently in that system, particularly as this population is
    growing. But one of the larger issues in that program is there
    is not a requirement that we use dieticians. There are
    nutrition staff kind of looking at menus. We have to meet the
    USDA \1/3\ requirements. But the reality is, with special
    needs, special diets, and chronic illnesses, we aren't doing
    that. Do any of these programs contemplate or utilize
    nutritionists or dieticians in these tours, or helping people
    figure out, in Fresh Savings, about what is the best choices
    for them?
        Ms. Hanna. We have employed dieticians and nutritionists in
    many of our stores to help customers figure out what the
    shopping budget and order needs to look like in order to
    maximize dollars, and to make sure that it is nutritious and
    healthy, and it will avoid any kind of allergies they may have,
    or if it is any kind of medical issues that they are dealing
    with. So it is something that we have been able to do, and
    continue to promote, and work, as we can get into more stores
    with it. I think it is good.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that
    is very impressive. It is not an easy enterprise. It can be
    cost prohibitive for smaller stores and smaller programs, but
    it is exactly the right thing to do. And then it gets to the
    bigger issue that we have, is having those healthy outcomes,
    and providing the resources and benefits to help leverage.
        I understand that these programs, particularly the touring
    of the grocery stores, is only available in two states. Is it
    Tennessee and Mississippi, is my information right about that?
        Ms. Hanna. That is all that I am aware of.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. All right. Well, tell us what we can do
    to help you expand those efforts. And I would actually just
    look at it from this perspective, particularly with AARP, that
    you can focus on states. Tennessee and Mississippi, I would
    say, fall into that category, where you have high poverty
    levels, you have chronic illnesses, you have obesity issues.
    New Mexico, unfortunately, falls into that category.
        But if you were to look at both maybe high risk states, and
    then states that are not high risk, and sort of see if you can
    get them on par by having those relationships, that might be a
    way to benefit the country, and those beneficiaries in a
    meaningful way, and maybe gives us an opportunity, in this
    Committee, to expand those efforts, and provide incentives in
    some way. And that would be my last thing. Let us know what we
    can do to continue to support your efforts in this regard,
    because I do think, ultimately, they make a difference.
        One last point, and I don't know how the Chairman puts up
    with me. I am lucky in this committee. But, New Mexico has one
    of the highest rates of grandparents raising grandchildren. And
    in this space, then, you have kids that are on SNAP benefits,
    and you have the senior who qualifies without raising those
    kids, and so you have that family benefit. Teaching those kids
    in that environment is great, so then you get kind of that
    family aspect. And I know AARP is well aware of those
    statistics. Florida has those issues, New Mexico has those
    issues, and that is another area for you to maybe highlight in
    the work that you are doing. Thank you very much. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Allen, 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Allen. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks,
    all of you, for being here. And, Mr. Wright, War Eagle. I was
    over there in God's country for 4 years, between 1970 and 1974,
    so I know a little bit about that area, but good to have you
    with us here today.
        Obviously the comments I get from folks in my district is
    they go to the grocery store, they go to the convenience store,
    and they see people using the card, and then using cash to do
    other things, and either what they term, would be inappropriate
    food. And with the technology that we have today, you would
    think that we could figure that out, or maybe, as an industry,
    could we figure that out? If the Federal Government is not real
    good at figuring that out, as far as how do we stop waste,
    fraud and abuse? Because, like I said, these practices are on
    display. People see it every day, and they get real upset about
    those kind of things that are going on.
        So, Ms. Hanna, from an industry, you have probably already
    addressed some of these things, but looking down the road, is
    there a way to make sure that the right foods, and some of
    these things that we have talked about already, as an industry,
    and also dealing with the bad actors. Maybe a certification
    process, or something, that we can make this better for those
    who are in need, but also those folks, the great American
    taxpayers, who are footing the bill for this?
        Ms. Hanna. Yes. It really comes down to collaboration of
    all the parties. So it needs to be the agencies, it needs to be
    the retailers, and it needs to be the participants in
    understanding and knowing how do you make healthy choices? What
    should you be buying which is not just going to fill your
    hunger need right now, but really as the medical profession and
    the health care profession is teaching us, and teaching
    children that if you eat almonds, or if you eat a banana, that
    will sustain you longer than eating a candy bar.
        Mr. Allen. Yes.
        Ms. Hanna. But the system that has been designed, which
    provides the information to the retailers to say, here are the
    eligible items, and the retailers that have implemented that,
    and that works well, because if it needs to be clear, then FNS
    could, again, elaborate, and make things more clear. But, our
    system today, because it does tell us these are eligible items,
    and these are non-eligible items. That is well known in our
    systems today, which we all use, restrict those ineligible
    items. But it becomes more education and understanding that if
    I buy this, it really is better for me, and it is more healthy
    for me, and that will sustain me longer. So, it just becomes a
    better collaboration between all of the stakeholders that are
    involved in it.
        Mr. Allen. Mr. Wright, obviously you know most of your
    customers on a first name basis, which is great. I love to go
    to the grocery store, I will be honest with you. Of course, it
    is a great way to see my constituents and whatnot as well, and,
    of course, they can't believe that I am actually shopping for
    groceries, but I like ice cream, and my wife won't buy me ice
    cream, so I have to go buy my own ice cream.
        But, anyway, your customers, for example, that you know
    they are using the cards, and that sort of thing. I mean, would
    an orientation process, like Ms. Hanna said, education is
    critical. Where are we missing the boat? Can we have, ``Okay,
    now that you are receiving these benefits, let us have an
    orientation process.'' This is what you can buy, these are the
    kinds of things that you need, just some real good education on
    nutrition that maybe they didn't get when they were in school,
    or something like that?
        Mr. Wright. Yes, I would agree with Ms. Hanna, that there
    is a piece of education there that would help tremendously. In
    the store in Atlanta that I work with, they have done some
    things with some chefs, and had some community gatherings where
    they taught people how to cook healthier. As we talked earlier
    today, they have been very successful with a two for one SNAP
    Bucks Program that was underwritten by some private
    foundations, and it dramatically moved the amount of fresh
    produce that SNAP recipients were purchasing.
        So there are a number of initiatives out there. Certainly,
    we are all aware that the insurance thing affects all of us.
    The insurance rates affects all of us, the healthier our
    nation, the better that our rates are, and we certainly want to
    participate in that in any way we can.
        Mr. Allen. Well, we certainly want to continue the program.
    It is important to those folks who need its nutrition. But, at
    the same time, we have to fix this thing, because there are a
    lot of folks that are really upset about some of the things
    that are going on. Thank you, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
    Benishek, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for being
    here this morning. I missed the early part of the hearing, so I
    apologize for that. But I just had a couple questions, little
    bit more about this nutrition thing. I am intrigued about it.
    Did I hear that some of those grocery stores actually have,
    like, a cooking class in the store? Can you just tell me a
    little bit more about that?
        Ms. Hanna. Yes. In many of our stores we have chefs who
    actually do demonstrations of cooking classes, and talk about
    how to prepare very healthy, nutritious meals, and then help
    the shoppers to create menus, and what products to buy in order
    to meet those cooking goals. We also have dietitians and
    nutritionists that also are available to help customers when
    they want to understand about----
        Mr. Benishek. Well, where are they available? Like, right
    in the store? You call them up, or what do you do?
        Ms. Hanna. No, they are in our stores, sir, in various
    locations.
        Mr. Benishek. Well, I just think that is interesting. I am
    glad you can see the usefulness of that. Let me ask another
    question to you, Ms. Hanna, because you have this big company.
    When you apply to be a part of the SNAP Program, does every
    single individual store have to make an application process, or
    do you as the company do it? Is it company-wide?
        Ms. Hanna. No, every individual store has to make an
    application to get a license to be a SNAP acceptor, so that it
    is handled on an individual level.
        Mr. Benishek. So every store is inspected, then at some
    point?
        Ms. Hanna. Yes.
        Mr. Benishek. Let me ask another question, I don't know if
    it was asked already, but there has been one reading that I
    did, it talked about, because SNAP recipients get their
    benefits all on the same day, that that sometimes can be a
    problem at the grocery store with stocking, or would there be
    some benefit in staggering that, or giving people their benefit
    twice a month? Maybe each of you could talk to this, is there
    any benefit to thinking about doing something like that?
        Ms. Hanna. Many of the states, not all of them, but many of
    the states have staggered benefits, and some have staggered
    them only a few days. Some have staggered them bi-monthly. But
    we encourage states to stagger their benefits out more days
    through the month. What happens is if you are putting out all
    of the benefits on one day, then you are going to have a lot of
    customers come in. So you have a lot of customers coming in we
    want to make sure that----
        Mr. Benishek. Right. All the hamburger is gone.
        Ms. Hanna. Well, we want to make sure that there is
    eligible stock for all the customers. And, we want to make sure
    that that is available for them. So it helps if they are
    staggered out.
        Mr. Benishek. Right. Anybody else have a comment on that?
        Mr. Wright. We are very fortunate in Alabama that we moved,
    with cooperation between NGA, Alabama Grocers Association, and
    DHR, Department of Human Resources, we moved from a 14 day
    schedule to a 21 day schedule, and it was a great help to us at
    retail in order to run the store, and, as Ms. Hanna said, to
    have the stock on the shelves, and things like that. When it
    was at 14 days, it was a challenge to really take care of
    everybody on the level that we would want to serve our
    customer.
        Mr. Benishek. I guess I don't understand the 14 versus 21
    days. What does that mean?
        Mr. Wright. Yes. In the past the benefits started
    distributing, and they are distributed by case number, and they
    were distributed over a 14 day period. And then now the
    schedule is expanded to 21, so----
        Mr. Benishek. The same number?
        Mr. Wright. Yes, they are spread out. Same number, just
    spread out further.
        Mr. Benishek. Yes, okay. Cool. All right, thank you. I will
    yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I want to thank
    our witnesses for being here today. This has been one of the
    more bipartisan attacks on a rule system that is just not
    working. And, first off, has either your store individually, or
    your groups, put your written comments in to FNS on this new
    rule? Yes from everybody? Okay. That is really important.
    Clearly, I don't believe there is any mal-intent at FNS. They
    just don't understand the system. And then, when you don't
    understand the system, you are in an academic mode, and you
    have a way of writing rules that don't work in the real world.
    And so, hopefully, we will see FNS take this testimony, and in
    particular David Scott's rather sugar coated comments, to heart
    in this endeavor.
        Again, thank you very much. You provide an integral part of
    the system, particularly from an integrity standpoint. None of
    you want the system to be besmirched with bad actors. Like I
    said previously, they had this issue in Florida this morning,
    where a storefront with no food whatsoever had redeemed some
    $13 million in food stamps, and I am not sure how that happens.
    That investigation will go forward. But every time that pops
    up, you have folks out there who don't really understand the
    impact that feeding hungry people has, and they just come off
    on the wrong foot.
        Mr. Wright, I am particularly impressed with your heart for
    this issue, and the way that you have reached out. The things
    that you do to innovate, and the flexibility of having no
    shareholders. You have a wife and a family to decide how much
    money your store makes, and that gives you a little bit more
    freedom, perhaps, than others. But across all four witnesses I
    heard great things, in terms of trying to work with an
    important population. Some 45 million Americans are
    beneficiaries of that program, and you help to make that work.
        With that, under the rules of committee, the record of
    today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to
    receive additional material, supplemental written responses
    from the witnesses to any questions posed by a Member. This
    hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned. Thank
    you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

     (THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS AND
                             OUTCOMES IN NUTRITION

                                   EDUCATION)

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:58 a.m., in Room
    1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael
    Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Conaway, Goodlatte, Gibbs,
    Austin Scott of Georgia, Gibson, Hartzler, Benishek, Davis,
    Yoho, Walorski, Allen, Bost, Rouzer, Abraham, Moolenaar,
    Newhouse, Kelly, Peterson, David Scott of Georgia, Fudge,
    McGovern, DelBene, Vela, Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Nolan, Bustos,
    and Graham.
        Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Haley Graves, Jadi
    Chapman, Mary Nowak, Stephanie Addison, Faisal Siddiqui, Lisa
    Shelton, Liz Friedlander, Mary Knigge, Robert L. Larew, Nicole
    Scott, and Carly Reedholm.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
                         IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

        The Chairman. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture,
    The Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: Evaluating Effectiveness
    and Outcomes in Nutrition Education, will come to order.
        Please join me in a quick prayer.
        Holy Father, thank you, Lord, for the privilege of serving
    as we do here, Members of Congress. Help us to be worthy of the
    trust that our constituents put in us. Give us wisdom and
    knowledge and discernment as we deal with things that affect
    the lives of everyday, good-hearted American people. Blessings
    to our Service. And we ask these things in Jesus' name. Amen.
        All right. Well, good morning. Thanks everybody for being
    here.
        I want to welcome the witnesses to today's hearing and
    thank them for taking the time to share their impressive
    collaborative experience working to improve the diets and
    health among families across the country through nutrition
    education. This hearing, like those before, builds on the
    Committee's top-to-bottom review of the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program, or SNAP, so as the Committee concludes our
    review, we will be positioned to make meaningful improvements
    to the program. As the Committee with jurisdiction over USDA,
    it is one of our principal responsibilities to oversee these
    programs to ensure that they are working most effectively for
    recipients, community leaders, and the American taxpayers.
        In this hearing we will discuss the history and evolution
    of the SNAP-Ed program, which is the nutrition education arm of
    SNAP; specific program models and interventions; how SNAP-Ed
    complements and works with other nutrition education programs,
    such as the Expanded Food and Nutrition Extension Program, or
    EFNEP; and efforts currently taking place that put greater
    emphasis on measuring outcomes to ensure dollars are used
    effectively.
        As a component of the overall SNAP program, the mission of
    SNAP-Ed is to improve the likelihood that persons eligible for
    SNAP will make healthy choices within a limited budget, and
    choose active lifestyles consistent with the current Dietary
    Guidelines for Americans. This is no short order. More than \2/
    3\ of Americans, and nearly \1/3\ of children and youth are
    overweight or obese. About \1/2\ of all American adults; 117
    million individuals, have one or more preventable chronic
    diseases, many of which are related to poor quality eating
    patterns and physical inactivity. These high rates of
    overweight and obesity and chronic disease have persisted for
    more than 2 decades and have come not only with increased
    health risks, but also at a very high cost. In 2008, the
    medical costs associated with obesity was estimated to be $147
    billion.
        There is no silver bullet to these serious health issues.
    It is a complex problem that will likely take a multi-prong
    approach. While obesity cannot be tied solely to socioeconomic
    status, it can be linked to food insecurity. It will take a
    collaboration between policymakers, state and local
    organizations, business and community leaders, schools,
    childcare, healthcare professionals, and individuals to create
    an environment that supports a healthy lifestyle for all
    Americans, and that is what we want to achieve.
        Throughout our review of SNAP, we have consistently heard
    that community engagement and collaboration are key in
    addressing many of the challenges communities face. Responses
    at the local level are more reactive and able to address the
    individual needs in their neighborhoods
        I am eager to hear from our witnesses today how they have
    leveraged Federal resources to improve the nutritional quality
    and overall health of low-income families in their communities.
        Historically, Congress has supported and invested in
    prevention programs, such as SNAP-Ed and the EFNEP, which
    educate and promote healthy eating habits to prevent long-term
    health-related expenses, and to empower low-income individuals
    to cook nutritious meals on a budget. In addition to nutrition
    education, this February the House Agriculture Committee held a
    hearing to review the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive, or
    FINI, program which aims to increase the consumption of fruits
    and vegetables. These approaches seem to each have their place
    in promoting proper nutrition. But, as we get closer to
    concluding our SNAP review, are there alternatives in which we
    can improve overall health outcomes?
        Again, I want to thank our witnesses for providing their
    expertise and working with our Agriculture Committee to ensure
    SNAP recipients are given a recipe for successful health.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
                              Congress from Texas
        I want to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing and thank them
    for taking the time to share their impressive collaborative experience
    working to improve the diets and health among families across the
    country through nutrition education. This hearing, like those before,
    builds upon the Committee's top-to-bottom review of the Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, so as the Committee concludes
    our review, we will be positioned to make meaningful improvements to
    the program. As the Committee with jurisdiction over USDA, it is one of
    our principal responsibilities to oversee these programs to ensure they
    are working most effectively for recipients, community leaders, and the
    American taxpayers.
        In this hearing we will discuss the history and evolution of the
    SNAP-Ed program, which is the nutrition education arm of SNAP; specific
    program models and interventions; how SNAP-Ed compliments and works
    with other nutrition education programs, such as the Expanded Food and
    Nutrition Extension Program, or EFNEP; and efforts currently taking
    place that put greater emphasis on measuring outcomes to ensure dollars
    are used effectively.
        As a component of the overall SNAP program, the mission of SNAP-Ed
    is to ``improve the likelihood that persons eligible for SNAP will make
    healthy choices within a limited budget and choose active lifestyles
    consistent with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans.'' This is
    no short order. More than \2/3\ of adults and nearly \1/3\ of children
    and youth are overweight or obese. About \1/2\ of all American adults--
    117 million individuals--have one or more preventable chronic diseases,
    many of which are related to poor quality eating patterns and physical
    inactivity. These high rates of overweight and obesity and chronic
    disease have persisted for more than 2 decades and come not only with
    increased health risks, but also at a high cost. In 2008, the medical
    costs associated with obesity were estimated to be $147 billion.
        There is no silver bullet to these serious health issues. It's a
    complex problem that will likely take a multi-prong approach. While
    obesity cannot be tied solely to socioeconomic status, it can be linked
    to food insecurity. It will take a collaboration between policymakers,
    state and local organizations, business and community leaders, schools,
    childcare and healthcare professionals, and individuals to create an
    environment that supports a healthy lifestyle for all Americans--and
    that's what we want to achieve. Throughout our review of SNAP, we have
    consistently heard that community engagement and collaboration are key
    in addressing many of the challenges communities face. Responses at the
    local level are more reactive and able to address the individual needs
    in their neighborhoods. I am eager to hear from our witnesses today how
    they have leveraged Federal resources to improve the nutritional
    quality and overall health of low-income families in their communities.
        Historically Congress has supported and invested in prevention
    programs, such as SNAP-Ed and EFNEP, which educate and promote healthy
    eating habits to prevent long-term health related expenses, and empower
    low-income individuals to cook nutritious meals on a budget. In
    addition to nutrition education, this February the Agriculture
    Committee held a hearing to review the Food Insecurity Nutrition
    Incentive, or FINI, program which aims to increase the consumption of
    fruits and vegetables. These approaches seem to each have their place
    in promoting proper nutrition, but as we get closer to concluding our
    review of SNAP, are there alternative ways in which we can improve
    overall health outcomes?
        Again, I want to thank our witnesses for providing their expertise
    and working with the Agriculture Committee to ensure SNAP recipients
    are given a recipe for successful health.

        The Chairman. And with that, I turn to the Ranking Member
    for any comments that he has.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
                       IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would also
    like to welcome today's witnesses to the Committee, and I look
    forward to hearing your testimony on SNAP education efforts.
        SNAP education and outreach is important, and there are a
    lot of lessons that can be learned from some of these efforts
    that the states have undertaken. Minnesota, for example, has a
    collaborative program called Choose Health that makes CSA
    shares available to low-income households. I am looking forward
    to learning more about other state programs.
        I believe this is the 15th hearing the Committee has held
    to review SNAP. It has certainly been a thorough review. And
    hopefully, what we learn today can be combined with information
    from past hearings, and we can focus on developing good
    policies.
        So with that, I look forward to hearing the witnesses, and
    yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        The chair would request other Members submit their opening
    statements for the record so the witnesses may begin their
    testimony, to ensure there is ample time for questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Adams follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
                              from North Carolina
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        It is well established by public health professionals that the
    consumption of more fresh fruits and vegetables is key to better weight
    management.
        Funding from SNAP-Ed and the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
    Program have provided critical resources to land-grant universities
    such as my alma mater North Carolina A&T, to educate families and
    children on healthy eating and living habits in the 12th District.
        The current level of SNAP benefits is not enough for families to
    purchase fresh fruits and vegetables and to put food on the table
    through the end of the month.
        SNAP benefits must be increased to allow families to fully utilize
    the skills they learn in SNAP education programs.
        That is why last month I introduced H.R. 5215, the Closing the Meal
    Gap Act of 2016.
        Among its several provisions to strengthen the SNAP program, this
    bill requires that SNAP benefits be calculated using the Low Cost Food
    Plan instead of the Thrifty Food Plan. Using the Low Cost Food Plan
    takes into account how much working people, including SNAP recipients,
    spend on food in order to have a nutritious diet.
        I thank Members of this Committee who have already joined this
    important legislation, and encourage all Members to cosponsor this
    bill.

        The Chairman. I would like to welcome to our witness table
    today Dr. Kimberlydawn Wisdom, Senior Vice President, Community
    Health and Equity at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit,
    Michigan. I was just in Detroit on Friday. The weather was
    perfect, along with my visit. I had a good time. Ms. Susan
    Foerster, Founding Member of the Association of SNAP Nutrition
    Administrators, Carmichael, California. Dr. Shreela Sharma,
    Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Texas, and she
    is a Co-Founder of Brighter Bites, Houston, Texas. And I would
    like to recognize Mrs. Hartzler to introduce our final witness.
        Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really excited
    to introduce a real hero of nutrition education from Missouri,
    and that is Dr. Jo Britt-Rankin. She is the Associate Dean of
    Extension at the University of Missouri, and Dr. Britt-Rankin
    serves as the Administrative Director of the Expanded Food and
    Nutrition Education Program and SNAP Education Programs for the
    State of Missouri.
        Dr. Britt-Rankin received both her Master's and Doctorate
    in nutrition education from the University of Missouri, my alma
    mater, and her Bachelor's in human development and family
    studies from the University of Illinois.
        Like myself, Dr. Britt-Rankin has spent a significant
    amount of her career dedicated to nutrition education. We
    appreciate her leadership and expertise, and we look forward to
    your testimony.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Wisdom, when you are ready to begin, the microphone is
    yours.

       STATEMENT OF KIMBERLYDAWN WISDOM, M.D., M.S., SENIOR VICE
      PRESIDENT, COMMUNITY HEALTH & EQUITY AND CHIEF WELLNESS AND
        DIVERSITY OFFICER, HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, DETROIT, MI

        Dr. Wisdom. Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member
    Peterson, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to speak before you today to discuss the critical
    importance of SNAP and SNAP nutrition education for good
    health.
        My name is Dr. Kimberlydawn Wisdom, and I am Senior Vice
    President of Community Health and Equity, and the Chief
    Wellness and Diversity Officer at Henry Ford Health System in
    Detroit, Michigan, one of the nation's leading comprehensive
    integrated health systems, and a Malcolm Baldrige National
    Quality Award winner. I am a board certified emergency medicine
    physician, and previously served as Michigan's, and the
    nation's, first state-level Surgeon General. I also serve on
    the Board of the Public Health Institute, which has been one of
    the nation's leading implementers of SNAP nutrition education,
    also known as SNAP-Ed.
        Henry Ford Health System is proud to implement a SNAP-Ed
    program in the City of Detroit and Macomb County. As a
    physician, I can attest that both SNAP and SNAP-Ed are vital
    tools in our arsenal to tackle the challenges of obesity,
    chronic disease, and hunger that threaten the health and well-
    being of our nation.
        For over 50 years, SNAP has served as the foundation of the
    nation's hunger safety net, helping to combat the impact of
    poverty and subsequent malnutrition. In the 21st century, the
    face of malnutrition looks very different than the extreme
    hunger that shocked so many Americans when the food stamp
    program was first established.
        Today, SNAP recipients live in neighborhoods and
    communities where making healthy choices can be challenging, if
    not impossible, due to the lack of safe, well-equipped, and
    well-maintained places to work and play, and the absence of
    nearby full-service grocery stores and other health services.
    These factors contribute to the malnutrition that now coexists
    with overweight and obesity. Comprehensive literature reviews
    examining neighborhood disparities and food access have found
    that neighborhood residents with better access to supermarkets
    tend to have healthier diets and reduced risk for obesity.
        While the face of malnutrition today is different than it
    was, the root cause and solutions remain the same, and SNAP
    continues to be our nation's first-line defense to improve
    nutrition and well-being among low-income Americans.
        Research clearly shows that USDA Federal nutrition programs
    do not contribute to the current obesity crisis in the United
    States. Instead, SNAP participation is associated with better
    dietary quality among low-income adults who are food-insecure.
    In fact, by improving dietary intake and reducing food
    insecurity, participation in Federal nutrition programs plays a
    critical role in obesity prevention.
        Henry Ford Health Systems' SNAP-Ed program funded through a
    grant from the Michigan Fitness Foundation is called Generation
    With Promise, and is one example of 49 effective programs
    throughout the State of Michigan that are changing the culture
    of food and health. Now in its ninth year, the program reaches
    youth and families in Detroit and Macomb County, and provides
    nutrition education, physical activity promotion, youth
    leadership development in elementary, middle, and high schools.
    We also work with community and faith-based organizations to
    promote healthy eating through cooking demonstrations and
    nutrition education.
        Today, our program serves among 40,000 youth and adults at
    schools, community organizations, and faith-based sites, with
    nearly 115,000 contacts. As a result of our program, just under
    90 percent of adults reported an increase in their consumption
    of fruits and vegetables, and over 80 percent of youth reported
    an increase in their consumption of fruits and vegetables. All
    aspects of our program are evaluated to measure impact and
    outcomes.
        Overall, in 2014 and 2015, Michigan's SNAP-Ed program,
    funded through the Michigan Fitness Foundation, has shown an
    annual increase in fruit and vegetable consumption of 170,000
    to 200,000 cups per day statewide; a health and an economic
    driver.
        SNAP-Ed is also making connections to healthy food systems
    and other resources and communities, including gardening,
    cooking classes, and farmers' markets. These partnerships
    benefit Michigan's farmers, strengthen the local economy, and
    provide farmers with new revenue streams and increased sales of
    specialty crops. SNAP-Ed is helping low-income families learn
    the importance and value of agriculture and the source of their
    food.
        Last October, as news of the public health water crisis in
    Flint emerged, the Michigan Fitness Foundation and SNAP-Ed
    partners were able to react quickly to adjust and augment their
    nutrition education focus, and reach under-served neighborhoods
    and residents to highlight food and food safety practices that
    were lead-protecting.
        In closing, I want to underscore that both SNAP and SNAP-Ed
    are key in our fight to address the epidemic of obesity and
    overweight in children and adults that leads to largely
    preventable chronic diseases. These programs are critical in
    the effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition, particularly
    in children, and can help improve overall poor health that
    perpetuates a cycle of poverty.
        Thank you so much for your time and attention.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Wisdom follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Kimberlydawn Wisdom, M.D., M.S., Senior Vice
     President, Community Health & Equity and Chief Wellness and Diversity
                 Officer, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI
        Good morning Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members
    of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
        My name is Dr. Kimberlydawn Wisdom, and I am the Senior Vice
    President of Community and Health Equity and Chief Wellness and
    Diversity Officer at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan. I
    am a board-certified Emergency Medicine Physician, the Chair of the
    Gail and Lois Warden Endowment on Multicultural Health, and previously
    served as Michigan's--and the nation's--First State-level Surgeon
    General. For the last 4 years, I've served on the Advisory Group on
    Prevention, Health Promotion and Integrative and Public Health,
    appointed by President Obama, where we advise his cabinet regarding
    health promotion and prevention health policy. I am on the faculty of
    the University of Michigan Medical School's Department of Medical
    Education, adjunct professor in the University of Michigan's School of
    Public Health, and have focused my work on health disparities and
    health care equity, infant mortality and maternal and child health,
    chronic disease, physical activity, unhealthy eating habits, tobacco
    use and youth leadership development. I also serve on the Board of the
    Public Health Institute, a global nonprofit headquartered in
    California, which has been one of the nation's leading implementers of
    SNAP nutrition education.
    Henry Ford Health System
        Henry Ford Health System is one of the nation's leading
    comprehensive, integrated health systems that provides health insurance
    and health care delivery, including acute, specialty, primary and
    preventive care services backed by excellence in research and
    education. Founded in 1915 by auto pioneer Henry Ford, we are committed
    to improving the health and well-being of a diverse community and in
    2011 we were recognized for our commitment to quality through the
    receipt of the prestigious Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.
    Henry Ford Health System is proud to implement a Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP) nutrition education program in the City of
    Detroit and Macomb County that works to improve the long term health
    and well-being of the SNAP-eligible families.
    SNAP and SNAP-Ed Vital for Health
        I am very pleased to have an opportunity to talk about the critical
    importance of SNAP and SNAP Nutrition Education (SNAP-Ed) for good
    health. As a physician, researcher/educator and public health leader,
    and as Michigan's former Surgeon General, I can attest that both SNAP
    and SNAP-Ed are a critical part of our Federal arsenal working to
    confront the twin threats of obesity and hunger that threaten the
    health and well-being of our nation.
        Just as the health of the American people is vital to our economic
    and national security, good nutrition is fundamental for public health,
    educational achievement and work productivity. Food security is a
    fundamental social determinant critical to community resilience.
    Without question, SNAP is helping low-income families put healthy,
    nutritious food on the table during times of need.
        For over 50 years, SNAP has served as the foundation of our
    nation's hunger safety net, helping to combat the impact of poverty and
    subsequent malnutrition. In the 21st century, the face of malnutrition
    looks very different than the extreme hunger that shocked so many
    Americans when the Food Stamp program was first established.
        Today, SNAP recipients live in neighborhoods and communities where
    making healthy choices can be challenging, if not impossible, due to
    the lack of safe, well-equipped and well-maintained places to walk and
    play, and the absence of nearby full service grocery stores and other
    health services. Many of these communities are considered `food swamps'
    due to the inadequate access to supermarkets and reliance on
    convenience stores, as well as a higher concentration of fast-food
    outlets limiting food choices to high calorie low nutrient foods.
        These factors contribute to the malnutrition that now co-exists
    with overweight and obesity. Comprehensive literature reviews examining
    neighborhood disparities in food access have found that neighborhood
    residents with better access to supermarkets and limited access to
    convenience stores tend to have healthier diets and a reduced risk for
    obesity (Larson, et al., 2009; Bell, et al., 2013). Low income
    communities and communities of color, including those in households
    eligible for SNAP, are disproportionately affected by obesity and
    chronic disease resulting from limited access to the fundamentals of a
    healthy lifestyle-healthy food and safe places to be active.
        The health-related costs attributable to food insecurity nationwide
    were estimated to be $160.07 billion in 2014 alone (Cook, et al.,
    2016). At the same time the costs in health care, disability, workers'
    compensation, and economic losses from lost worker productivity are
    matched by the personal toll on individuals and their families.
        For the first time in U.S. history, reported by the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention, our youngest generation is expected to
    have a shorter lifespan than their parents--a result of childhood
    obesity and chronic disease. Obesity is linked to increased risks for
    many serious and largely preventable diseases, including type 2
    diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and some cancers. Nationally, the
    prevalence of diabetes among adults has nearly tripled over the past 30
    years. Research has found that African American and Latino populations
    are disproportionately affected, with a lifetime risk of more than 50
    percent compared to the general population's 40 percent.
        While the face of malnutrition today is different than it was, the
    root causes and solutions remain the same and SNAP continues to be our
    nation's first line of defense to improve nutrition and well-being
    among low-income Americans. SNAP benefits provide an essential resource
    and are a powerful tool to help ensure that very-low-income Americans
    can afford a nutritionally adequate diet. Expanding the use of these
    types of Federal nutrition assistance programs and child nutrition
    programs such as school meals and the Supplemental Nutrition Program
    for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), is critical to help reduce high
    rates of food insecurity among the low-income population.
        Let me be clear, SNAP participation does not lead individuals and
    families using the program to make poor choices or be overweight. Far
    from it. Research clearly shows that United States Department of
    Agriculture (USDA) Federal nutrition programs do not contribute to the
    current obesity crisis in the U.S. (Fan & Jin, 2015; Gleason, et al.,
    2009; Hofferth & Curtin, 2005; Linz, et al., 2004; ver Ploeg, 2009; ver
    Ploeg, et al., 2008). Instead, SNAP participation is associated with
    better dietary quality among low-income adults who are food-insecure
    (Nguyen, et al., 2015). More specifically, compared to similar low-
    income non-participants, SNAP participants with marginal, low, and very
    low food security have better overall dietary quality. In fact, by both
    improving dietary intake and reducing food insecurity, participation in
    the Federal nutrition programs plays a critical role in obesity
    prevention.
        SNAP is effective in its mission to mitigate the effects of poverty
    on food insecurity and is further enhanced by SNAP-Ed, the nutrition
    education and obesity prevention arm of SNAP that works to ensure that
    low-income families will make healthy diet and physical activity
    choices within a limited budget.
        SNAP-Ed is a critical piece of the equation working to improve
    nutrition and prevent or reduce diet-related disease and obesity among
    SNAP-eligible households. Throughout the United States, SNAP-Ed
    programs work to promote healthy behaviors and reach low-income
    families where they live, learn, work, play and pray. The program helps
    low-income families understand the importance of healthy choices and
    empowers parents and their children to make the healthy choice the
    easily accessible and affordable choice.
        SNAP-Ed plays an active role in improving dietary and physical
    activity practices, while helping to increase community food security,
    prevent obesity and reduce the risk of chronic disease for low-income
    Americans. A study conducted in California in 2012 found that the
    greatest concentration of SNAP-Ed interventions was associated with
    adults and children eating more fruits and vegetables, and adults
    eating fast food less frequently. These findings demonstrate the
    potential impact of such interventions and how SNAP-Ed plays an
    important role in addressing both chronic disease and the obesity
    epidemic in the United States (Molitor, et al., 2015).
    SNAP-Ed: Generation With Promise
        Henry Ford Health System's SNAP-Ed Program, funded through a grant
    from the Michigan Fitness Foundation, is called Generation with Promise
    (GWP) and is one example of 49 effective programs throughout the state
    of Michigan that are changing the culture of food and health. Now in
    its ninth year, GWP reaches youth and families in Detroit and Macomb
    County and provides nutrition education, physical activity promotion
    and youth leadership in elementary, middle, and high schools, alongside
    proven public health approaches that increase healthy behaviors. GWP
    also works with community and faith-based organizations, promoting
    healthy eating through cooking demonstrations and nutrition education.
        Today, GWP serves 37,360 youth and adults in 2015, at schools,
    community organizations and faith-based sites with nearly 115,000
    contacts. Due to GWP, 89.9% of adults reported an increase in their
    consumption of fruits or vegetables and 81.4% of youth reported an
    increase in their consumption of fruits or vegetables. All aspects of
    our program are evaluated to measure impact and outcomes. Overall, in
    2014 and 2015, Michigan SNAP-Ed programs funded through the Michigan
    Fitness Foundation, including GWP, have shown an annual increase in
    fruit and vegetable consumption of 170,000 to 200,000 cups per day
    statewide, a health and economic driver!
        We are proud of the breadth of interventions within our programs,
    from cooking classes taught by a chef and dietitian or nutrition
    educator classes that include a grocery store tour, to interventions
    that teach menu and meal planning and how to stretch food dollars on a
    low-income budget. Participants willingly learn about healthy and
    delicious food that is not expensive or difficult to make. The number
    one most common comment we hear at the end of the class series is that
    participants wish the class was longer!
        Leveraging other funds and demonstrating the value of a true
    community partnership, Henry Ford Health System is also able to provide
    groceries to participants so that they replicate the recipes at home.
    Nearly all participants report that they made the recipe at home during
    the week. Participants have followed up with our team to share their
    great news including losing 50 pounds and keeping it off for 6 months
    after the program, cooking dinner with their middle-school aged
    children, and enrolling in classes related to culinary arts, dietetics
    or health.
        SNAP-Ed is also making connections to healthy food systems and
    other resources in communities including gardening, cooking classes and
    farmers' markets. For example, GWP provided 60 recipe demonstrations,
    tastings, and nutrition education at ten Detroit Community Markets and
    other farmers' markets in low-income neighborhoods. Nearly all
    attendees said they were inspired to prepare new recipes. GWP has
    provided SNAP-Ed in grocery stores in partnership with Michigan Fitness
    Foundation and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services,
    and with Double Up Food Bucks and the Fair Food Network using Michigan
    Harvest of the Month educational strategies and materials.
        Through these community partnerships with local organizations, SNAP
    recipients can shop at the local farmers' markets and some grocery
    stores and receive twice as much of locally grown produce at an
    affordable price. This partnership also benefits local farmers,
    strengthening the local economy and providing farmers with new revenue
    streams and increased sales of specialty crops. SNAP-Ed is helping low-
    income families learn the importance and value agriculture and the
    sources of their food.
        I cannot underscore enough the way in which SNAP-Ed is a versatile
    tool that can respond to the nutrition and health needs of low-income
    families in our state. Last October, as news of the public health water
    crisis in Flint emerged, the Michigan Fitness Foundation and SNAP-Ed
    partners were able to react quickly to adjust and augment their
    nutrition education focus to highlight foods and food safety practices
    that were lead protecting. Over the past months, Michigan Fitness
    Foundation and SNAP-Ed have been essential in continuing to connect
    increasing numbers of partners and programs to reach under-served
    neighborhoods and residents to support a foundation on which to build
    the Flint of the future.
    Priority Recommendations
        Improvements can be made and I would suggest the following
    recommendations to further strengthen and maximize the health and
    nutritional impact of SNAP and SNAP-Ed.

      1.  To better combat food insecurity and childhood hunger, income
                eligibility criteria should not exclude children whose
                families happen to live in high-cost states. USDA should
                index income criteria for food assistance program
                eligibility to local or regional cost of living, such as
                the Cost of Living Index or other recognized measure,
                rather than the nationally-applied Federal Poverty Level
                (FPL).

      2.  The Thrifty Food Plan, used as the fiscal base for SNAP, should
                be modified to increase the benefit value and accommodate
                the generally-higher prices of healthy food and regional
                variability in cost of living.

      3.  Remove restrictions that prevent retailers from offering
                Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) point of sale--and
                promotional prices for healthy foods such as fruits and
                vegetables, whole grains etc.

      4.  SNAP-Ed should be utilized to provide technical assistance and
                training to convenience store business owners and smaller
                retailers, combined with common sense stocking standards
                for SNAP that increase the availability of fresh foods in
                all four food categories. This would have the benefit of
                increasing the availability, accessibility and possibly
                lower the price of healthy food in many low-income
                communities. SNAP-Ed implementing agencies can be
                encouraged to work with the private sector and community
                partners to help small businesses and convenience stores
                identify and establish procurement systems that increase
                healthy food options for their customers.

      5.  Initiatives such as Double Up Food Bucks and Michigan Farm to
                Family in Michigan, Market Match in California, and other
                Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) grants across
                the county should be leveraged and replicated to increase
                healthy food purchasing by SNAP-eligible families and
                encourage the participation at more local and chain grocery
                stores.

      6.  Congress and USDA should provide startup grants and establish a
                public-private innovation fund that would support technical
                assistance networks that help states and localities
                implement, adapt and take to scale evidence based nutrition
                education interventions and strategies throughout the
                country. Topics and activities that could be part of such
                technical assistance networks could include: community food
                system assessments, Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) at
                farmers' markets, corner store conversion projects,
                community-supported agriculture, farm-to-fork sourcing,
                state or local food policy councils, agricultural
                preservation, small farm and new farmer programs, and
                community/school gardens. This low-cost network might be
                established using public and private grants or cooperative
                agreements with nonprofit public health, anti-hunger and
                food security organizations; the existing Cooperative
                Extension system; FNS programs; partnerships with other
                sectors like foundations, nonprofit health plans, insurers
                and hospitals; and sister Federal agencies like the Centers
                for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of
                Transportation, Department of Education, and Housing and
                Urban Development.

        In closing, I want to underscore that both SNAP and SNAP-Ed are key
    in our fight to address the epidemic of obesity and overweight in
    children and adults that leads to largely preventable chronic diseases.
    These programs are critical in the effort to eliminate hunger and
    malnutrition, particularly in children, and can help improve overall
    ill health that perpetuates the cycle of poverty.
        Across our country SNAP families are striving, working hard to make
    ends meet and put healthy food on the table, often in very challenging
    circumstances. These families are the solution finders. Many are the
    families of those serving in our armed forces here at home and
    overseas. With limited resources, SNAP-Ed is empowering these families
    with the tools necessary to make a healthy choice. SNAP-Ed is a small
    program but it has an impact and influence well beyond its size.
        I welcome the opportunity to work with Congress and USDA to
    identify measures that can identify and remove obstacles limiting the
    reach, impact and effectiveness of the Federal nutrition programs,
    including SNAP-Ed, and to create sustainable healthy change in under-
    served communities.
        Thank you for your time and consideration of my recommendations. I
    am happy to answer any questions.
    References
        J. Cook and A.P. Poblacion (2016) ``Estimating the Health Related
    Costs of Food Insecurity.'' 2016 Hunger Report. www.hungerreport.org.
        M. Fan and Y.H. Jin (2015). ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program and Childhood Obesity in the U.S.: Evidence from the National
    Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997.'' American Journal of Health
    Economics.
        Hofferth, Sandra L., and Sally Curtin. ``Poverty, food programs,
    and childhood obesity.'' Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24.4
    (2005): 703-726.
        Gleason, Philip. School meal program participation and its
    association with dietary patterns and childhood obesity. No. 55. DIANE
    Publishing, 2010.
        Leung, Cindy W., et al. ``Dietary intake and dietary quality of
    low-income adults in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.''
    The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2012): ajcn-040014.
        Molitor, Fred, et al. ``Peer Reviewed: Reach of Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed) Interventions and
    Nutrition and Physical Activity-Related Outcomes, California, 2011-
    2012.'' Preventing Chronic Disease 12 (2015).
        Ver Ploeg, Michele L., and Katherine L. Ralston. ``Food Stamps and
    obesity: What do we know?.'' Economic Information Bulletin 34 (2008).
        Ver Ploeg, Michele, et al. ``U.S. Food assistance programs and
    trends in children's weight.'' International Journal of Pediatric
    Obesity 3.1 (2008): 22-30.
        Gregory, Christian, et al. ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program (SNAP) participation leads to modest changes in diet quality.''
    Economic Research Report 147 (2013).
        Nguyen, Binh T., et al. ``The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program, food insecurity, dietary quality, and obesity among U.S.
    adults.'' American Journal of Public Health 105.7 (2015): 1453-1459.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Wisdom.
        Ms. Foerster.

     STATEMENT OF SUSAN B. FOERSTER, M.P.H., EMERITUS AND FOUNDING
    MEMBER, ASSOCIATION OF SNAP NUTRITION EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS,
                             CARMICHAEL, CA

        Ms. Foerster. Good morning. Chairman Conaway, Ranking
    Member Peterson, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    invitation.
        My name is Susan Foerster, and I am here today representing
    the Association of SNAP Nutrition Education Administrators. We
    have members in all 50 states and territories, and our job is
    to administer the SNAP-Ed program in the organizations that we
    come from. My background is that I ran the largest SNAP-Ed
    program in California, and during that time we were able to see
    an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption among low-income
    adults, to the point that it reached the same level as higher-
    income and higher-education people. We don't know for sure if
    it was SNAP-Ed, but there was nothing else going on, so we
    think it was. In addition, we have some studies from California
    that show a dose response relationship. The more intervention,
    the better the dietary practices.
        Today, I am talking with you in my capacity as the co-lead
    for evaluation with the ASNNA organization, and so I am going
    to be able to talk a little bit about the background of SNAP-Ed
    and the way it looks today, and the way we want to see it in
    the future.
        In my 2 years in retirement, I have been able to work with
    the other states, across state lines, to address the issue of
    evaluation and outcomes. So I know you are interested in that,
    and we will go from there.
        I am going to talk about the farm bill policies; how
    Federal policy has influenced the history of the program, what
    SNAP-Ed looks like now, what has been done administratively to
    be sure that the program is accountable for results and well-
    administered, and finally, where we are going in the future.
        What we really have in SNAP-Ed are three generations.
    Nutrition education in the SNAP program was authorized in the
    Farm Bill of 1981. It was based on the EFNEP model which was
    direct education by paraprofessionals. By the middle 1990s,
    however, evaluations were being done, we had the Dietary
    Guidelines telling us that many more Americans were not eating
    well, and so the idea was that we needed a wider range of
    techniques. And so social marketing was introduced as a social
    innovation model, and that allowed us to use the same kind of
    techniques that the food industry was using to get people to
    eat healthy.
        Then by 2010, when the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act was
    passed, many of the changes that we had wanted to see and had
    experienced in the field made the third generation of SNAP-Ed,
    and that was that our scope expanded to include physical
    activity and obesity prevention, larger-scale approaches and
    community approaches. The funding changed so that there was a
    grant mechanism rather than Federal financial participation,
    and the program was capped based on the 2009 funding to 2018.
    So that is kind of where we are right now. There is a
    reallocation schedule in place that started in 2014, and will
    conclude in 2018 when the new farm bill comes up.
        In terms of where we are right now, the size of our
    population that we are trying to influence is 90 million people
    that have incomes below 185 percent of poverty. Of that, about
    40 million are already SNAP participants, and you can see that
    the scope of our effort is quite large.
        We reach people through the places they go, the
    institutions that they use, and through mass communications. We
    work in highly targeted ways in Census tracks and institutions
    where the majority of people have incomes below 185 percent of
    poverty.
        We work through all the state SNAP programs, and there are
    about 144 what we call state implementing agencies that
    actually administer the funds and usually put most of them out
    the door to other kinds of nonprofit and government agencies.
    They also pay for business processes such as mass media,
    printing, and so forth.
        The reach of the program, we can only tell you really the
    tip of the iceberg, and that is in 2015, we know that we
    educated at least six million people, on whom we have
    demographic information, with direct education. We do not have
    numbers on those that were reached indirectly through community
    programs where we couldn't get the demographics on the people,
    but the services for direct education were in 50,000 low-income
    sites across the country. So six million people with direct
    education, 50,000 sites, 20 different kinds of channels, from
    worksites to churches, to parks and recreation, to shelters and
    so forth. What we don't have, as I said, is information about
    the number of people reached otherwise. We do have 28 states
    doing actual social marketing campaigns, and they reported
    reaching about 19 million more people that they know about. Of
    those people, about 65 percent that we know of were SNAP
    participants, 25 percent were school-age children, and a very
    small proportion were seniors.
        So to just conclude, sorry I went on like that, SNAP is not
    as visible as we would like it to be because of the way that it
    is differently named. It is run usually through another
    organization or it has its own brand name. We do not call
    ourselves by the Federal name.
        In conclusion, we are very excited to have put together a
    compendium of over 100 evidence-based interventions that are
    developed for physical activity and nutrition, and for
    different channels where we administer those programs that are
    available for everyone to use.
        The Chairman. Ms.----
        Ms. Foerster. Most recently, we have put together what is
    called----
        The Chairman. Ms. Foerster, I am going to have to ask you
    to conclude. Thank you.
        Ms. Foerster. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Foerster follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Susan B. Foerster, M.P.H., Emeritus and Founding
        Member, Association of SNAP Nutrition Education Administrators,
                                 Carmichael, CA
        Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, Committee
    Members and fellow panelists. Thank you for the opportunity to think
    together about how SNAP-Ed, the nutrition education arm of SNAP, can be
    made even more effective in future years.
        My remarks will be mostly from the perspective of a former state
    official who founded and directed the country's largest SNAP-Ed
    program. Through the California Department of Public Health, we had
    already used an NCI grant to establish the California 5 a Day--for
    Better Health! Campaign, the world's first public-private partnership
    with the nation's produce industry to increase fruit and vegetable
    consumption. Its purpose was to help prevent cancer and other diet-
    related chronic diseases. In the 1990s, the 5 A Day Program was adopted
    for nationwide use NCI and CDC, as well as 25 other countries.
        In FFY 96, we used this experience to win a USDA competition for
    planning grants that allowed us to establish the Network for a Healthy
    California in FFY 97. It was the country's first of what became 22 FSNE
    (Food Stamp Nutrition Education) social marketing nutrition `networks';
    nutrition education was an optional administrative activity that could
    qualify for Federal Financial Participation if non-Federal matching
    funds could be generated. In California, we used the FFP to develop,
    test and roll-out at least 20 different statewide and community
    interventions. Our program efforts coincided with an upward trend in
    reported fruit and vegetable consumption by low-income adults that, to
    the best of our knowledge, was unique among states.
        In the 2 years since retirement, I have worked through the
    Association of SNAP Nutrition Administrators (ASNNA) to co-lead its
    evaluation and outcomes activities. As a former state leader, I want to
    help states realize the potential of SNAP-Ed. As the nation's largest,
    most flexible and dynamic community nutrition program, I believe that
    SNAP-Ed can be used to generate significant, unique and groundbreaking
    improvements that will help improve eating and physical activity
    environments, advance food security, reduce or eliminate diet-related
    disparities among low-income income Americans, while also benefitting
    many in the agriculture and food industry sectors.
        Today I will address four questions:

       What farm bill policies have informed the direction and
            impact of SNAP-Ed?

       What is SNAP-Ed now, and why isn't more known about its
            impact?

       What has been done administratively to assure that SNAP-Ed
            serves low-income communities and is fully accountable?

       What new, cutting edge measures have been put in place to
            help states and their partners to be even more effective in the
            future, and to build out the scientific foundations that have
            been put in place over the last 20 years?
    What farm bill policies have informed the direction and impact of SNAP-
            Ed?
        SNAP, once known as the Food Stamp Purchase Program (1933), is the
    oldest of the major food assistance programs, while SNAP-Ed is the
    youngest of USDA's major nutrition service efforts.

     Chronology of Federal Statutory and Administrative Landmarks in SNAP-Ed
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1981                                   Food Stamp Nutrition Education
                                            (FSNE) was authorized in the
                                            farm bill as an optional
                                            administrative expense funded
                                            though state/local cost-share or
                                            `match' that would qualify for
                                            an equal amount of Federal
                                            Financial Participation; it
                                            cited nutrition education using
                                            the EFNEP as peer education
                                            model established in 1969.
    FFY 1992                               Only seven states conducted FSNE
                                            ($750K for the entire U.S.). As
                                            national concern about the
                                            impact of diet-related diseases
                                            on health grew; USDA
                                            commissioned a report on the
                                            effectiveness of nutrition
                                            education which called for
                                            theory-driven approaches and
                                            recommended using social
                                            marketing, akin to marketing
                                            that the food industry uses (JNE
                                            1995).
    FFY 1995-97                            USDA funded 22 states with $100-
                                            $200K planning grants to
                                            establish social marketing
                                            nutrition networks, create state
                                            plans, and raise cost-share/
                                            match to support the state
                                            plans.
    FFY 2004                               All 50 states and D.C. conducted
                                            FSNE; funding totaled $280M in
                                            FFP.
    2005-2010                              OMB conducted sequential Program
                                            Assessment evaluations
                                            recommended establishing clearer
                                            missions and goals,
                                            strengthening strategic
                                            planning, developing
                                            standardized measures, and
                                            capturing program results.
    2008                                   Farm Bill changed Food Stamps to
                                            Supplemental Nutrition Program
                                            (SNAP)
    FFY 2010                               USDA introduced the Education and
                                            Administrative Reporting System
                                            (EARS) for FFY 2010 to collect
                                            annual statistics on people
                                            reached, services provided,
                                            content, and materials used in
                                            state programs. Administrative
                                            system did not collect
                                            information on results or
                                            outcomes.
    2010                                   In November, Congress used the
                                            2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids
                                            Act to establish SNAP-Ed as a
                                            new grant program in the farm
                                            bill, replacing the prior
                                            incentive-type model, primarily
                                            to redistribute funds among the
                                            states and relieve burden of
                                            obtaining and documenting match.
                                           New provisions added physical
                                            activity, obesity prevention,
                                            community and public health
                                            approaches to the SNAP-Ed
                                            charge; clarified that 185% FPL
                                            was the income eligibility
                                            level; required coordination
                                            with CDC; added `evidence-based
                                            approaches' as a criterion.
                                           Capped funding until 2018 at 2009
                                            baseline ($400M) without
                                            matching requirements,
                                            established SNAP State Agencies
                                            as managers of the annual grant
                                            process, reallocated funds among
                                            states over a 5 year period
                                            using a formula that
                                            redistributed funds in 10%
                                            increments according to the
                                            state's proportion of U.S. SNAP
                                            participation. By eliminating
                                            the state/local match, the
                                            overall investment would be
                                            reduced by \1/2\.
    FFY 2012                               The state/local share requirement
                                            for states was dropped for FFY
                                            2012.
    2013                                   USDA issued an Interim SNAP-Ed
                                            Rule in the Federal Register and
                                            invited public comments.
    FFY 2014                               The first year of the 5 year
                                            reallocation formula was
                                            implemented; work on what became
                                            the SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework
                                            and the SNAP-Ed Strategies &
                                            Interventions: An Obesity
                                            Prevention Toolkit for States.
    FFY 2015                               USDA's Annual SNAP-Ed Guidance
                                            for FFY 2016 fully implemented
                                            provisions in the 2010 HHFKA.
    FFY 2016                               Final Rule for SNAP-Ed was
                                            issued.
                                           USDA established the SNAP-Ed
                                            Evaluation Framework as its
                                            overarching, science-based to
                                            capture outcomes in 51 SNAP-Ed
                                            topics areas and completed a
                                            companion Interpretive Guide to
                                            the SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework
                                            to help define consistent
                                            metrics that could be reported
                                            consistently by states. An
                                            expanded SNAP-Ed Strategies &
                                            Interventions: An Obesity
                                            Prevention Toolkit for States
                                            was released, and USDA's SNAP-Ed
                                            Connections website was revamped
                                            with an updated, searchable
                                            Resource Library that is
                                            intended to be a searchable
                                            inventory for `all things SNAP-
                                            Ed' that is readily available to
                                            any user.
                                           USDA issued a Request for Quote
                                            solicitation to review the state
                                            reports, identify to what degree
                                            plans, reports and EARS align
                                            with the SNAP-Ed Evaluation
                                            Framework, and develop a
                                            standardized template for annual
                                            state reports to allow
                                            aggregation of state-level data.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What does SNAP-Ed look like today?
        Size of the Eligible Low-income Population: Low-income in SNAP-Ed
    is defined as a household income below 185% of the Federal Poverty
    Level (FPL) because they would be eligible for other means tested
    Federal programs such as WIC, Free and Reduced Price school meals
    (FRPM), and many public health programs. Among low-income Americans,
    the 90 million people includes about 40 million who participate in SNAP
    because their incomes fall below 130%.
        How low-income people are reached: People are not means tested by
    SNAP-Ed but rather served because the community they live in, an
    institution they use, or a geographic area that they frequent has a
    majority of the population with incomes below 185% FPL. For example,
    SNAP-Ed programs may work only with grocery stores in low-resource
    Census tracts or with monthly SNAP receipts exceeding $50,000.
    Similarly, SNAP-Ed may work only with schools or districts where over
    50% of the students qualify for Free/Reduced-Price Meals (FRPM) or in
    worksites, faith organizations, park districts, housing, shelters, and
    other community sites where over 50% of the people have incomes <185%
    FPL. Since SNAP-Ed work products are public use, other organizations
    may use them freely.
        Number and Diversity of SNAP-Ed Implementing Agencies: All 54
    states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam receive
    SNAP-Ed grants that flow through the SNAP State Agency to one or more
    State Implementing Agencies (SIAs). The 144 SIAs that deliver SNAP-Ed
    themselves are diverse and bring a variety of strengths to SNAP-Ed;
    they include Land-Grant University Extension services, other
    universities, public health departments, nonprofits, Indian Tribal
    Organizations, and some SNAP agencies. In turn, most SIA funds flow to
    other public, nonprofit and business entities that provide statewide or
    local services. The state grants have no matching requirements, and
    states make decisions about funding priorities for service based on
    needs assessments, partner readiness and the skills of each SIA. A
    detailed state plan is approved annually by USDA's Food and Nutrition
    Service (FNS).
        Reach of SNAP-Ed: In 2015 the 144 SIAs collectively provided direct
    education services to over six million low-income people in 20
    different community channels with nearly 50,000 low-resource community
    locations. Channels are organizations or systems such as schools and
    school districts, child care centers, food banks and emergency food
    sites, community youth organizations, public housing, churches, health
    centers, park and recreation sites, food stores, and community gardens
    where food and physical activity decisions can be influenced. Of the
    144 SIAs, 28 reported also conducting larger-scale social marketing
    initiatives that reached over 19 million people.
        Of the people receiving direct education, about 65% were SNAP
    participants, 25% were school-aged children, and .05% were elders.
    There are no estimates of the number of people reached though policy,
    systems or environmental approaches, or on outcomes. More detail on
    that will be provided below.
    Why is SNAP-Ed not more visible, like other nutrition programs?
        SNAP-Ed has the largest scope and most diverse mission among USDA's
    community nutrition programs, but for a variety of reasons SNAP-Ed
    activities may not be readily identified.
        Names of SNAP-Ed Programs: Like many other Federal programs, many
    SNAP-Ed programs have established a specific branded identity and do
    not use the Federal categorical designation. Other times, SNAP-Ed funds
    are used to help organizations or campaigns augment their services to
    better reach SNAP-Ed audiences, so the SNAP-Ed targeted activities may
    not be identified as such. For all entities, SNAP-Ed rules must be
    followed and mandatory reports completed.
        The term, nutrition education, includes more than direct education:
    The term, `nutrition education' was added to Food Stamp language in
    1981 and has not been updated. As science and practice have matured,
    the term `nutrition education' had to be reinterpreted to achieve the
    needed population outcomes. In SNAP-Ed, nutrition education means `any
    combination of educational strategies, accompanied by environmental
    supports, designed to facilitate the voluntary adoption of food and
    physical activity practices . . . conducive to the health and well-
    being of . . . SNAP participants, individuals eligible to participate,
    others eligible . . . for other means-tested Federal assistance, and
    individuals residing in communities with significant low-income
    populations.'
        SNAP-Ed requires a broad science-base, which adds to its
    complexity: To address the many social determinants that are known to
    impact healthy eating (including food security and food access),
    physical activity, and obesity prevention, today's nutrition education
    approaches use a widely accepted theory, the Social Ecological Model
    (SEM). This approach often involves working with partner organizations
    behind the scenes. The SEM helps planners systematically focus on four
    spheres of influence that support healthy behavior change in
    populations. The four spheres are: individuals and peer groups,
    institutions that impact low-income people, multi-sector community
    efforts, and larger scale social norms. Activities in these spheres may
    appear fragmented, but they are designed to create synergy and drive
    toward similar outcomes. The SEM is recommended by many authoritative
    bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences and the Dietary
    Guidelines for Americans.
    What has been done administratively to assure that SNAP-Ed serves low-
            income communities and is fully accountable?
        Similar to SNAP itself, SNAP-Ed is highly structured. USDA
    oversight of SNAP-Ed is guided by statute, namely the 2010 Healthy,
    Hunger-Free Kids Act, and implemented through:

       Final Regulations issued in 2016.

       Annual SNAP-Ed Guidance that governs targeting, activities,
            allowable expenditures.

       The seven FNS Regional Offices review and approve annual
            state plans and budgets, including SMART objectives, and most
            mid-year amendments.

       Mandatory process evaluation measures through the Education
            and Administrative Reporting System (EARS).

       Annual Reports that report on specific progress toward
            achieving each state's annual SMART objectives; development of
            new programs and materials; evaluation activities, reports, and
            publications; and expenditures.

       Regular on-site Management Evaluations (ME) with a formal
            process when corrective action is required.

        Program Requirements: The experience and know-how accrued over the
    last 20 years is well-codified in SNAP-Ed Guidance. In SNAP-Ed, states
    are asked to select a set of complementary educational, social
    marketing and environmental support approaches that will work together
    to achieve population and community outcomes. Each state is now
    required to deliver community and public health approaches in addition
    to direct education.
        Social marketing is defined as using commercial marketing
    techniques to influence voluntary behavior for personal welfare and
    that of society. Techniques based on formative research and market
    segmentation may include: advertising, PR, promotion, multiple forms of
    mass communication, and education that is synchronized across different
    organizational channels such as worksites, retail stores, and civic
    organizations.
        Community and Public Health Approaches. These may include
    techniques such as consumer empowerment, community development, public-
    private partnerships, and policy, systems and environmental change
    (PSE). In SNAP-Ed the definitions are:

       Policy change: In the public, nonprofit or business sectors,
            policies are written organizational decisions or courses of
            action, resources, implementation, evaluation and enforcement.
            In accord with Federal law, SNAP-Ed may provide information to
            elected officials but may not lobby for any bill, ordinance, or
            funding level.

       Systems Change: These are unwritten organizational decisions
            about services, locations, staffing and budgets that can reach
            large numbers of low-income people.

       Environmental Change: These are changes in the physical,
            visual, economic, social, normative or message environments
            that can positively influence eating and physical activity
            behaviors.

        The well-respected RE-AIM model may be used by states to help
    decide what interventions to sponsor. Choices may be based on a
    structured needs assessment that includes the probability of reaching
    large numbers of people, the availability of effective interventions,
    the likelihood of adoption and implementation of those interventions by
    partnering organizations, and the probability that the effort will be
    maintained in the future without SNAP-Ed resources.
    What new, cutting edge measures have been put in place to help states
            and their partners to be even more effective in the future, and
            to build out the scientific foundations that have been put in
            place over the last 20 years?
        As shown in the Chronology, many evaluation efforts by SNAP-Ed
    stakeholders have culminated in 2016. A cutting-edge set of
    intervention and evaluation resources has been compiled to help the
    very diverse community of SNAP-Ed agencies deliver strong, evidence-
    based interventions, map their progress, and report the results. This
    has been done as a partnership among USDA, SIAs, the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Collaborative on
    Childhood Obesity Research. Most notably, these include:

       The SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework, a breakthrough approach to
            large-scale, long-term outcome evaluation. It is designed as a
            `menu' from which states can select, according to their
            priorities, and an overarching, aspirational and science-based
            scheme for the country. It is intended to capture key outcomes
            in 51 different areas that lead to community and population
            improvement.

       Interpretive Guide to the SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework, a
            companion how-to document that suggests standard metrics,
            instruments and data sources for the 51 Indicators in the
            Framework so that results can be aggregated across the country.
            It was compiled and reviewed by 40 contributors from 28
            different states. As experience is gained with the measures and
            instruments, it will provide the basis for standardized
            reporting and aggregated data.

       Practitioner Stories that outline how nine early adopting
            states are using the Framework and Interpretive Guide.

       SNAP-Ed Strategies & Interventions: An Obesity Prevention
            Toolkit for States that links to almost 100 evidence-based
            interventions, the great majority of which were developed
            through SNAP-Ed funding. This Toolkit reflects a brand new
            science base for large-scale interventions--especially those
            using social marketing and policy, systems and environmental
            change approaches--that is customized to low-resource settings
            and diverse populations. It will soon be posted as a searchable
            electronic format. It provides a resource that any like-minded
            organization to use. No such resource has ever been available.

       USDA's SNAP-Ed Connections website now has an updated
            Resource Library that can be populated by SNAP-Ed partners and
            others to house survey and evaluation instruments, intervention
            materials, reports and published papers. It is searchable by
            population group, community channel, intervention goal, date,
            state, type of material, method and many other characteristics.
            It will help bring new SNAP-Ed partners up to speed and allow
            mature programs to extend their impact in new intervention
            areas and with new partners more quickly.
    What evidence is there that these efforts will be successful?
        These evaluation breakthroughs have been done well. Strong
    groundwork was laid for rapid uptake of these new approaches because
    states were involved from the beginning. We contributed in soliciting
    and reviewing interventions to select the very best, choosing the most
    important and feasible outcomes, and selecting evaluation metrics that
    will be practical for local, state and national stakeholders. In FFY
    14, the nine states and territories in the Western Region reported over
    900 PSE changes in just 1 year.
        State plans for FFY 17 are due soon. But one example is that one
    Midwestern state that was not involved in the Framework has already
    adopted it by challenging itself to secure 50 PSE changes in FFY 16,
    namely:

       Starting a local food policy council or health coalition
            (4).

       Community gardens (4).

       New pantry locations (3).

       Food donation systems (5).

       Food insecurity screening (3).

       Increasing number of food vendors at farmers' markets who
            accept SNAP (10).

       Establishing school wellness committees (6).

       School wellness policy reviews and updates (4).

       Increasing park and trail use in communities (3).

       Healthy checkout lanes (3).

       Shared use policies to increase physical activity options
            (1).

       Healthy vending machines at workplaces (4).

        ASNNA is aware that these efforts are aggressive and very new for
    the entire field of nutrition. Similar to other reporting systems, we
    expect that the devil will be in the details. However, we recognize
    that the collective impact approach that SNAP-Ed is undertaking is the
    only way that the significant population and community changes that
    SNAP-Ed aims for can be achieved.
        We are committed to continuing our collaboration with USDA and
    other organizations. In our work plan for this year are projects that
    will convey the vision and encourage wide use of the materials,
    continually upgrade the models based on real world with experience,
    help populate the new SN[A]P-Ed Library as a practical resource,
    identify or develop common data sources, and provide training and peer
    support to sister agencies
        We are committed to remaining visionary, open, transparent,
    accountable and well-grounded so that these funds are spent to achieve
    maximum impact.
        Thank you for this opportunity and for your support of SNAP and
    SNAP-Ed.
    SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework
    Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Prevention Indicators

              April 2016.

                    SNAP-Ed State Implementing Agencies, 2015
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       State Implementing Agencies Reporting
             State/Territory                   in EARS, 2015 (N=144)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AK                                 Alabama Nutrition Education Program
    AL                                 University of Alaska Fairbanks
    AR                                 University of Arkansas, University of
                                        Arkansas at Pine Bluff
    AZ                                 Arizona Department of Health Services
    CA                                 California Dept. of Public Health,
                                        University of California Davis,
                                        Catholic Charities of California,
                                        California Department of Aging,
                                        California Dept. of Social Services
    CO                                 N/A
    CT                                 Connecticut Department of Public
                                        Health, University of Connecticut,
                                        University of Connecticut College of
                                        Agriculture, University of
                                        Connecticut Health Center,
                                        University of Connecticut Neag
                                        School of Education, Hispanic Health
                                        Council, Inc
    DC                                 Department of Health
    DE                                 University of Delaware
    FL                                 University of Florida
    GA                                 Health M Powers, University of
                                        Georgia, Georgia Coalition for
                                        Physical Activity and Nutrition
    GU                                 N/A
    HI                                 Hawaii Department of Health,
                                        University of Hawaii at Manoa
    IA                                 Iowa Department of Public Health,
                                        Iowa State University
    ID                                 University of Idaho, Boise Center
    IL                                 Chicago Partnership for Health
                                        Promotion, University of Illinois
    IN                                 Purdue University
    KS                                 Kansas State University
    KY                                 University of Kentucky
    LA                                 Louisiana State University
                                        Agricultural Center, Southern
                                        University Agriculture Center
    MA                                 University of Massachusetts, Share
                                        Our Strength/Cooking Matters MA,
                                        Lutheran Social Services of New
                                        England, Inc., Kit Clark Senior
                                        Services
    MD                                 University of Maryland
    ME                                 University of New England
    MI                                 Michigan Nutrition Network at
                                        Michigan Fitness Foundation,
                                        Michigan State University
    MN                                 University of Minnesota Extension
                                        Service, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
    MO                                 University of Missouri
    MS                                 Mississippi State University
    MT                                 Montana State University Extension
    NC                                 North Carolina Cooperative Extension--
                                        Surry Center, Durham County Health
                                        Department, Alice Aycock Poe Center
                                        for Health Education, The University
                                        of North Carolina at Greensboro,
                                        North Carolina State University,
                                        University of North Carolina at
                                        Chapel Hill, NC Agricultural and
                                        Technical State University, East
                                        Carolina University MATCH
    ND                                 North Dakota State University
                                        Extension Service
    NE                                 University of Nebraska
    NH                                 University of New Hampshire
                                        Cooperative Extension Merrimack
                                        County
    NJ                                 Rutgers, The State University of New
                                        Jersey
    NM                                 New Mexico State University
                                        Cooperative Extension Service,
                                        Cooking with Kids, Kids Cook!, Las
                                        Cruces Public Schools, University of
                                        New Mexico Prevention Research Ctr.,
                                        Institute of American Indian Arts
    NV                                 Help of Southern Nevada--Baby First
                                        Services, Yerington Paiute Tribe,
                                        University of Nevada Cooperative
                                        Extension, Food Bank of Northern
                                        Nevada, Step 2, Te-Moak Tribe of
                                        Western Shoshone, Three Square
    NY                                 Cornell Univ. Cooperative Extension
                                        Oneida County, New York State (NYS)
                                        Department of Health, Cornell
                                        Cooperative Extension of Erie
                                        County, Food Bank For New York City,
                                        Cornell Univ. Cooperative Extension
                                        Orange County, City Harvest, Inc.,
                                        Cornell Cooperative Extension of
                                        Onondaga County, The Children's Aid
                                        Society, Cornell Univ. Co-op.
                                        Extension of Suffolk County, Common
                                        Pantry, Cornell Cooperative
                                        Extension of Albany County
    OH                                 Ohio State University
    OK                                 Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma State
                                        University
    OR                                 Oregon State University
    PA                                 Pennsylvania State University
    RI                                 University of Rhode Island
    SC                                 South Carolina Department of Health
                                        and Environmental Control, Clemson
                                        University, South Carolina
                                        Department of Social Services, Low
                                        Country Food Bank
    SD                                 South Dakota State University
    TN                                 Tennessee State University,
                                        University of Tennessee
    TX                                 East Texas Food Bank, East Texas Food
                                        Bank, South East Texas Food Bank,
                                        Texas A&M Cooperative Extension,
                                        Houston Food Bank, North Texas Food
                                        Bank, Tarrant Area Food Bank, South
                                        Plains Food Bank, Food Bank of
                                        Corpus Christi, Food Bank of Rio
                                        Grande Valley, San Antonio Food
                                        Bank, Capital Area Food Bank of
                                        Texas, ActiveLife Movement
    UT                                 Utah State University Cooperative
                                        Extension
    VA                                 Virginia Tech University
    VI                                 N/A
    VT                                 Vermont Department of Health
    WA                                 Washington State University,
                                        Washington State Department of
                                        Health
    WI                                 University of Wisconsin--Extension,
                                        Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, Ho-
                                        Chunk Nation Health Center,
                                        Milwaukee Health Services Inc., City
                                        of Milwaukee Health Department,
                                        Northwest Wisconsin Community
                                        Services, Inc., Chippewa County
                                        Department of Public Health,
                                        Bayfield County Health Department,
                                        Polk County Health Department,
                                        Outagamie Health and Human Services
                                        Public Health, Oneida County Health
                                        Department, Kewaunee County Health
                                        Department, Family Plan Health
                                        Services, Kenosha County Dept. of
                                        Human Svs., La Crosse County Health
                                        Dept, Portage County Comm. Human
                                        Service, Juneau County Health Dept,
                                        West Allis Health Dept, Jefferson
                                        County Health Department, Wood
                                        County Health Department, Vernon
                                        County Health Dept., Sauk County
                                        Dept. of Health, Waupaca County
                                        Dept. Human Servs., Hunger Task
                                        Force of Milwaukee
    WV                                 West Virginia University
    WY                                 University of Wyoming Cooperative
                                        Extension Service
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SIAs, by state 2015 EARS 6-20-16.

        The Chairman. Dr. Sharma.

           STATEMENT OF SHREELA V. SHARMA, Ph.D., R.D., L.D.,
     ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DIVISION OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, HUMAN GENETICS
                      AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES,
      UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS; CO-FOUNDER, BRIGHTER BITES, HOUSTON, TX

        Dr. Sharma. Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and
    Members of the Committee, good morning, and thank you for the
    opportunity to testify at today's hearing on SNAP-Ed.
        My name is Dr. Shreela Sharma. I am a Professor of
    Epidemiology at the University of Texas, School of Public
    Health, and Co-Founder of Brighter Bites nonprofit
    organization, and I have spent the last 10 years contributing
    to childhood obesity prevention and control program efforts in
    Texas.
        In 2012, I was approached by Lisa Helfman, a mom and an
    attorney, who had an idea to help solve the lack of access to
    fresh produce that exists in under-served neighborhoods. Back
    in 2011, Lisa was participating in a food co-op where she
    received a box of fruits and vegetables every week, and over
    time, she watched her children's eating habits change. She
    describes this moment when she was with her 5 year old son at a
    birthday party, and he called her over to ask if he had to eat
    the cake. He said it was too sweet and he would rather have
    fruit instead. At that moment, she wondered if she could
    replicate the same behavior change that she saw in her young
    son in under-served neighborhoods. And today, I am here to tell
    you that you can, and we did.
        Together, we built a program called Brighter Bites. Our
    three-part formula is simple: first, produce distribution where
    each family gets 30 pounds of fresh produce; second, nutrition
    education in school and for parents; and third, a fun food
    experience where families try a healthy, tasty recipe, all done
    each week for 16 weeks during the school year and 8 weeks
    during the summer, in low-income communities. Our parents try
    kale smoothies with their child, and receive the recipe and the
    ingredients to make it at home. And parents are volunteering at
    our co-ops and engaging in our communities of health. As one of
    our parents said, Brighter Bites made me cook things I wouldn't
    have bought, for fear of wasting money if my children didn't
    like it.
        In 2012, we started with one elementary school in Houston,
    Texas, and thanks to funding from the USDA SNAP-Ed program, as
    of 2016 we have expanded this same formula in Houston, Dallas,
    and Austin, and distributed more than 8 million pounds of
    produce to over 20,000 low-income children and their families,
    across more than 90 schools, Head Start centers, YMCAs, and
    community centers in these three cities.
        As a behavioral epidemiologist, I have focused on building
    a strong research and data infrastructure for Brighter Bites,
    and our results are compelling. We know that 98 percent of the
    families participating in Brighter Bites are eating more
    produce during the program, and what is more compelling is that
    74 percent are maintaining the same levels by buying it on
    their own, even after the Brighter Bites season ends.
        Recently, we completed a 2 year study among 760 first grade
    children and their parents, and results showed that both
    children and their parents receiving Brighter Bites had a
    significant increase in intake of fruits and vegetables as
    compared to those who did not receive the program. Moreover,
    Brighter Bites parents reported a twofold increase in cooking
    at home, using nutrition facts labels to make purchasing
    decisions, eating more meals together as a family, and having
    more fruits and vegetables available at home during meals, as
    compared to those who did not receive the program.
        So you might wonder how we have grown such a transformative
    program so quickly and so effectively. Brighter Bites is
    leveraging the support of corporations like H-E-B, Sysco Foods,
    and the Produce Marketing Association. Sysco is collecting
    produce that would otherwise be discarded, directly from
    farmers across the country, and then sending it to local food
    banks who are aggregating the food from Sysco and other sources
    and distributing it to our Brighter Bites locations. Brighter
    Bites also has a partnership with Feeding Texas to develop a
    statewide model for nutrition education, and with the UT School
    of Public Health on developing the education and research
    framework for the program. These collaborations allow us to
    conquer the last mile of delivering the produce directly to our
    families, while teaching them how to use it. We plan to
    continue to use SNAP-Ed funding, couple it with corporate and
    private sponsors and expertise to expand Brighter Bites
    programming and research. We have the ability to spread
    Brighter Bites throughout the country to build demand for fresh
    produce, empower people to achieve a better health, and tackle
    food waste all at the same time. Our metrics show that this
    approach can work.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Sharma follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Shreela V. Sharma, Ph.D., R.D., L.D., Associate
     Professor, Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental
     Sciences, University of Texas; Co-Founder, Brighter Bites, Houston, TX
        Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, Members of the
    Committee, good morning. And thank you for the opportunity to testify
    at today's hearing on SNAP-Ed. My name is Dr. Shreela Sharma. I am a
    Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Texas School of Public
    Health, and the Co-Founder of Brighter Bites nonprofit organization and
    I have spent the last 10 years contributing to childhood obesity
    prevention and control program efforts in Texas.
        Over the past 30 years, obesity in children has doubled in the
    United States with 34% of 6 to 11 year olds being overweight or obese,
    and quadrupled among adolescents.\1\ Most children in the United States
    do not meet the recommended intakes of healthy foods including fruits
    and vegetables, putting them at risk for chronic diseases including
    obesity in childhood and adulthood. Recent reports from the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) using data from 2003-2010,
    indicate a 12% per year increase in intake of fruit among children ages
    6 to 11 years, and among those from low-income families; however, there
    were no increases in intake of vegetables or whole grain foods.\2\
    About 60% of children consume fewer fruits than recommended, and 93% of
    children consume fewer vegetables than recommended. In Texas, child
    consumption rates of fruits and vegetables is among the lowest as
    compared to other states with over 50% of the children consuming fruits
    and vegetables less than once per day.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Ogden C.L., Carroll M.D., Kit B.K., Flegal K.M. Prevalence of
    childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011-2012. Journal of
    the American Medical Association 2014; 311(8): 806-814.
        \2\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and
    Mortality Weekly Report. Vital Signs: Fruit and Vegetable Intake Among
    Children--United States, 2003-2010, 2014; 63(31); 671-676.
        \3\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State Indicator
    Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2013. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/
    nutrition/downloads/state-indicator-report-fruits-vegetables-2013.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2012 I was approached by Lisa Helfman, a mom and an attorney,
    who had an idea to help solve the lack of access to fresh produce that
    exists in under-served neighborhoods, where childhood obesity rates are
    high and health problems are an epidemic. Back in 2011, Lisa was
    participating in a produce co-op where she received a box of fruits and
    vegetables every week, and over time she watched her children's eating
    habits change as a result of this consistent access to fresh produce.
    She described this moment when she was with her 5 year old son at a
    birthday party and he called her over to ask if he had to eat the cake.
    He said it was too sweet and he would rather have fruit instead. At
    that moment, she thought she may be on to something and wondered if she
    could replicate the same behavior change that she saw in her young son
    in under-served neighborhoods. And today, 5 years later, I am here to
    tell you that you can and we did.
        Together we built a program called Brighter Bites with the purpose
    of providing fresh fruits and vegetables combined with hands-on
    nutrition education in schools and to families in under-served
    neighborhoods and food desert areas. Our formula is simple. Produce
    Distribution (50-60 servings per family per week) + Nutrition Education
    in school and for parents + Fun Food Experience consisting of a healthy
    recipe tasting, all done on a consistent basis for 16 weeks during the
    school year and 8 weeks during the summer. The program uses a food co-
    op model to engage parents and families where they participate in the
    bagging and distribution of the produce at the schools.
        In 2012, we implemented the formula with 150 kids at one Knowledge
    is Power Program (KIPP) charter elementary school in Houston, Texas
    that was 93% low-income. We distributed 50 servings (30 lbs) of 8-12
    different produce items a week, trained the school to teach CATCH, a
    Texas Education Agency-approved evidence-based coordinated school
    health program, in the classroom and provided corresponding nutrition
    education and recipes to parents.\4\ When the parents came to pick up
    their children from school, each family received two bags of beautiful,
    fresh produce at no cost and a fun food experience--they tasted a
    sample of the recipe of the week made from a hard-to-use item in the
    bag. Parents tried kale smoothies with their child and received the
    recipe and the ingredients to make it at home! Parents also received
    two nutrition handbooks consisting of information on food preparation,
    food storage, how to use nutrition facts labels to make food purchases,
    MyPlate, easy menu planning and recipe ideas, and other tips and tools
    on how to enhance the home nutrition environment. Children who had
    never eaten an orange were now chasing us for kale smoothies! And
    parents were volunteering at our co-ops and engaging in our communities
    of health.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Sharma S.V., Markham C., Helfman, L., Albus K., Pomeroy M.,
    Chuang R.J. Feasibility and acceptability of Brighter Bites: A food co-
    op in schools to increase access, continuity and education of fruits
    and vegetables among low-income populations. Journal of Primary
    Prevention. 2015, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp. 281-286.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thanks to the funding of the USDA SNAP-Ed program, as of 2016, we
    have expanded this same formula in Houston, Dallas and Austin and
    distributed more than 8 million pounds of produce to over 20,000 low-
    income children and their families across more than 90 schools, Head
    Starts, YMCAs and community centers in these three cities.
        Brighter Bites is giving parents living on a limited income, who
    have traditionally been afraid of buying fruits and vegetables because
    they either don't know how to prepare it or can't manage the financial
    risk that their children won't eat it, a ``risk free trial'' to
    practice cooking and eating healthy foods with their children. And our
    research shows that these trials are creating lasting behavior change.
        As a behavioral epidemiologist and registered dietitian, I have
    focused on building a strong research and data infrastructure for
    Brighter Bites. We have collected data consistently for the last 4
    years on program effectiveness, dosage, reach and fidelity on all our
    families. Data collection happens several ways. Each week Brighter
    Bites coordinators complete surveys to provide data on produce
    distribution (what was distributed and how much), and education
    implementation at each site. Attendance rosters provide data on weekly
    produce pick up by each family; parents complete surveys two times a
    year on acceptability, usage and effectiveness of Brighter Bites
    program components; and cost of providing produce per family per week
    is obtained from the food banks who aggregate and deliver the produce
    to the Brighter Bites sites. We have a centralized database that
    aggregates data from all three cities (Houston, Dallas, and Austin) on
    an ongoing basis. Qualitative and quantitative data in the form of
    focus groups with the parents and systems-level surveys with the food
    banks, and schools further informs program development and evaluation.
        These data points have not only informed our program, but also
    helped further the scientific dialogue to understand how our children
    and families eat. Our results are compelling. We know that 98% of the
    families participating in Brighter Bites are eating more produce during
    the program, and what's more compelling is that 74% are maintaining the
    same levels by buying it on their own even after the Brighter Bites
    season ends. Also, 93% of the families reported that they ate all or
    more of the vegetables, and 96% said they ate all or most of the fruit
    that was provided to them through Brighter Bites. Brighter Bites
    families also reported saving on average $34.40 on their weekly grocery
    bill while in the program. And, parent engagement is high with between
    four to ten parents volunteering each week in the Brighter Bites co-ops
    at schools to assist with the bagging and distribution of the produce.
        Recently we completed a 2 year rigorous study among 760 first grade
    children and their parents in 2013-2015.\5\ At baseline, 42% of the
    first grade children ages 5 to 7 in our study were overweight or obese,
    which is higher than the national average for this age, and they were
    consuming only one serving of fruit and 0.5 servings of vegetables per
    day. Results of our study showed that both, children and their parents
    receiving Brighter Bites had a significant increase in the intake of
    fruits and vegetables and reported consuming fewer calories from added
    sugars as compared to those who did not receive the program. Moreover,
    we saw promising improvements in the home environment. Brighter Bites
    parents reported a two-fold increase in cooking at home, using
    nutrition facts labels to make purchasing decisions, eating more meals
    together as a family, and having more fruits and vegetables available
    at home during meals as compared to those who did not receive the
    program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Sharma S.V., Markham C., Chow J., Ranjit N., Pomeroy M., Raber
    M. Evaluating a school-based fruit and vegetable co-op in low-income
    children: a quasi-experimental study. Under review.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        You might wonder how we have grown such a transformative program so
    quickly and so effectively?
        Brighter Bites is leveraging the support of corporations like H-E-B
    Grocery Company and Sysco Foods. Sysco, with 9,000 trucks running
    daily, is collecting produce that would otherwise be discarded directly
    from farmers across the country and then sending it to local food
    banks. We are partnering with the local food banks in Houston, Dallas
    and Austin who are aggregating the food from Sysco and other sources,
    and then distributing it to our Brighter Bites locations. We are also
    collaborating with the Produce Marketing Association, which is
    committed to advancing kids' consumption of fruits and vegetables. Our
    cooperation with such industry experts aims to determine how to tackle
    food waste by finding more produce that might otherwise be tilled under
    or go uneaten. Brighter Bites also has a partnership with Feeding
    Texas, a statewide association representing 21 Texas food banks, in
    efforts to develop a statewide model for nutrition education. Finally,
    Brighter Bites has a strong academic partnership with the Michael and
    Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living at the University of Texas School
    of Public Health, an internationally-recognized leading research center
    in child health, and the CATCH Global Foundation to further the
    educational, evaluation, metrics and scientific rigor of the program.
    Through these partnerships, we are able to conquer the last mile of
    delivering the produce directly and consistently to our under-served
    families while teaching them how to use it. And, we are creating
    opportunities for the children to practice these healthy behaviors
    while at school. We are also successfully linking the school and the
    home--the two environments where children spend a majority of their
    time. Thus, we are creating communities of health through fresh food,
    and we look forward to bringing this impact to more cities across the
    country.
        In summary we have found the results of our program effectively
    address multiple key concerns related to promoting healthy eating
    behaviors, and our food chain including:

       educating children and their parents, how to eat healthier,
            in school and at home,

       tracking the impact of the program with regards to health,
            shopping/eating habits, and parent participation in schools,

       addressing the last mile by actually delivering a
            substantial amount of fresh, healthy food to underprivileged
            children to take home and practice healthy eating,

       taking advantage of partnering with private corporations and
            nonprofit food banks for distribution, and

       addressing food waste by working with farmers to utilize
            overgrown crops.

        I would like to end with a couple of quotes from our Brighter Bites
    parents who said the following in one of our focus groups:

              ``Brighter Bites made me cook things I wouldn't have bought
            for fear of wasting money if my children didn't like it.''
              ``Brighter Bites is a huge support for my budget as it helps
            me save around $140 a month. Although the cost of fruits and
            vegetables [in grocery stores] is high, as a single mother it
            is hard but I try to maintain a healthy diet based on what
            Brighter Bites has taught me.''

        We plan to continue to use SNAP-Ed funding, couple it with
    corporate and private sponsors with both expertise and dollars, to
    expand Brighter Bites and our research to push the dialogue forward on
    how to healthfully feed our families. We have the ability to spread
    Brighter Bites throughout the country to build demand for fresh
    produce, empower people to achieve better health and tackle food waste
    all at the same time. Our metrics show that this approach can work.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present and I look forward to your
    questions.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Sharma.
        Dr. Rankin.

      STATEMENT OF JO BRITT-RANKIN, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE DEAN/PROGRAM
    DIRECTOR, HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES EXTENSION, UNIVERSITY OF
      MISSOURI, COLUMBIA, MO; ON BEHALF OF EXTENSION COMMITTEE ON
                        ORGANIZATION AND POLICY

        Dr. Britt-Rankin. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Ranking
    Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee, it is an honor
    to be invited to be here to share more about SNAP-Ed in land-
    grant universities.
        I have spent my career at the University of Missouri, and
    for 18 years have worked with both SNAP-Ed and EFNEP, and I can
    tell you that there is no better job out there.
        Land-grant institutions have a rich history with SNAP-Ed.
    Beginning in 1988, the first SNAP-Ed program was delivered by
    the University of Wisconsin Extension. By 1992, seven land-
    grant institutions via extension delivered SNAP education, and
    it grew to over 49 states and territories by 2002. As many as
    55 land-grant institutions have provided SNAP-Ed in any given
    year. That includes both 1890 and 1862 institutions.
        Land-grant universities, via cooperative extension, are
    uniquely positioned to deliver SNAP education. We are primarily
    an educational serving institution. We have the ability to
    translate the research that is conducted into educational
    programs. We conduct program evaluation that informs future
    research. Our annual community needs assessment also reaches
    out and understands what are the needs of the constituencies
    that we serve.
        Currently, there are over 3,600 faculty and staff members
    that work with extension SNAP-Ed programs nationally. We have
    moved from a paraprofessional model, as Ms. Foerster mentioned,
    in the early years, to more of a professional model. Many of
    our professionals hold Master's, Bachelor's, and Ph.D. degrees.
    They are registered or licensed within the nutrition and
    physical activity communities.
        As is the case, our educators are located in communities
    often where they live and work. They understand the needs of
    the individuals that they serve. They are also there to receive
    the feedback and the evaluation throughout that community. I
    can tell you that our educators across the country receive
    feedback every day because they are there, seeing where people
    are purchasing their food, where they are eating, where they
    are participating in physical activity.
        As stated in opening comments, the goal of SNAP-Ed is for
    participants to make healthy food choices, stretch their food
    dollars, and have active lifestyles. We feel that the impacts
    that are seen in extension SNAP-Ed programs are doing that. We
    know that we see people increasing the variety of fruits and
    vegetables that they consume, increasing the quantities of
    fruits and vegetables. They are increasing their water
    consumption, decreasing sugar-sweetened beverages, and
    consuming more low-fat and no-fat dairy products. An example
    that we saw in Idaho with their Eat Smart Idaho Program, there
    was an over 50 percent increase in both fruit and vegetable
    consumption. In addition, 47 percent of the participants
    increased their physical activity levels.
        In 2015, SNAP-Ed began to encourage policy, system, and
    environmental interventions. These interventions may include,
    and this is a very limited list, edible gardens, farm-to-
    institution procurement, and smarter lunchroom approaches. We
    know that all of these approaches will increase food access and
    food security in SNAP participants.
        Gardening is probably one of the strategies that is most
    widely utilized. It reinforces direct education that we see in
    classrooms. We know that it improves dietary quality. We see
    increased food access and a reduction in food insecurity among
    SNAP recipients. I believe the strongest piece I would say is
    SNAP-Ed, we know that SNAP recipients are only on SNAP for a
    limited amount of time. We need to make their behavior changes
    sustainable.
        I would leave you with one we-can-see impact throughout the
    country. We see that we are helping schools make policy
    changes, increasing physical activity, increasing healthier
    options in the schools. My time is limited, but I will leave
    you with one impact that demonstrates the impact that land-
    grants can have. In Missouri, we had an educator in 2014 that
    taught a fifth-grade class. Eight weeks each time, they
    received a nutrition lesson, and as their physical activity,
    they jumped rope. One young lady, fifth-grader, overweight,
    very self-conscious, she excused herself each time that it was
    time to jump rope. At the end, every child, including this
    young lady, was presented a jump rope. In the fall of 2014 the
    educator returned to the same school, and she is walking down
    the hall and a young lady runs up and she goes, Ms. Suzie, do
    you remember me? And she said, Honey, I am sorry, I meet so
    many. Remind me of your name. And she said, I am the girl that
    can't jump rope. She said, I thought about what you taught me.
    I started drinking more water over the summer instead of soda.
    I started to eat carrot sticks instead of chips, and I taught
    myself to jump rope. I jumped rope every day. I lost 26 pounds.
    Not everybody loses 26 pounds, but we are making differences in
    SNAP-Ed.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Britt-Rankin follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Jo Britt-Rankin, Ph.D., Associate Dean/Program
        Director, Human Environmental Sciences Extension, University of
          Missouri, Columbia, MO; on Behalf of Extension Committee on
                            Organization and Policy
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
    Committee, it is an honor to be invited to testify before you today and
    submit testimony for the record on SNAP-Ed. Land-grant universities
    have a rich history with SNAP Education (SNAP-Ed). Beginning in 1988,
    SNAP-Ed was first delivered by University of Wisconsin Extension. By
    1992, seven land-grant universities, via Extension, delivered SNAP-Ed
    programming and this number grew to 49 states and territories by 2002.
    Currently in FY 2016, there are 49 land-grant universities/Cooperative
    Extension services providing SNAP-Ed, including both 1862 and 1890
    institutions.
        With the growth of Extension-lead SNAP-Ed programs, USDA NIFA
    established the SNAP-Ed Program Development Team (PDT) in 2001. This
    team includes Family and Consumer Science Program Leaders and other
    university administrators, SNAP-Ed Program Coordinators, an office
    manager, and a NIFA representative who are committed to improving the
    consistency and effectiveness of SNAP-Ed programming through
    Cooperative Extension in addressing national health and nutrition-
    related problems facing low-income populations. Each member serves a 2-
    3 year team. I served as a member of the PDT from 2006-2009.
    The Land-Grant Mission and SNAP-Ed
        Land-grant universities (LGUs), through Cooperative Extension, are
    uniquely positioned to serve as SNAP-Ed Implementing Agencies. First
    and foremost, Extension and the land-grant university has a primary
    educational mission. They are not a service provider. University
    faculty have the ability to translate research into educational
    programs and conduct program evaluation which informs future research.
    This creates a continuous quality assurance feedback loop. Annual
    community needs assessments also help shape programming that meets the
    SNAP participant where they are most receptive to engage in education.
    These activities are all part of what we call the Land-grant Mission
    and what Justin Morrill, Hoke Smith and Asbury Lever envisioned over
    100 years ago.
    Figure 1. Program Development Process

        With the passage of the Morrill Act of 1862 and 1890, land-grant
    universities were established in each state to provide greater access
    to higher education to the citizens with two primary missions--Research
    and Teaching. With the passage of the 1914 Smith-Lever Act, these
    institutions created a third mission, what is known as Extension. The
    Extension mission was designed to translate the university-generated
    research and teaching beyond the campus to farms and consumers.
    Extension was to be a cooperative activity between the Federal
    Government (USDA), the states (via land-grant institutions) and county
    governments.\1\
        The Ohio State University (OSU) SNAP-Ed, in collaboration with Case
    Western Reserve University (CWRU) and Ohio Department of Health's
    Creating Healthy Communities Initiative, is currently demonstrating how
    land-grant universities can conduct research and translate it into
    educational interventions. This OSU-lead collaborative is working
    together to develop a tool that will help front line staff to determine
    what Policy, Systems, Environments (PSE) intervention a group or
    community is willing to undertake and be successful. The tool will take
    the interested group through an online questionnaire and depending on
    the question responses will determine the most reasonable intervention
    and provide online resources to guide implementation. OSU faculty
    recruited SNAP-Ed participants and SNAP-Ed staff for the core formative
    evaluation and have been engaged in the ongoing development of the
    tool. They also assisted with further refinement by engaging
    practitioners in farm to school, early child care, farmers markets and
    healthy corner stores. Given the statewide reach of OSU Extension, they
    were able to provide populations from a variety of environments rural,
    urban, and suburban. CWRU is providing their expertise in data analysis
    and tool construction. The tool questionnaire is now in the preliminary
    phases of testing and the website is being developed.
        The Extension mission continues today being delivered across each
    state by a network of faculty, ensuring educational opportunities from
    the urban core to the most rural locations. These faculty are often
    referred to as agents, educators or specialists. In 2016, the PDT
    conducted a survey \2\ of land-grant university SNAP-Ed faculty to
    determine what the qualifications and education those who provide SNAP-
    Ed programming have. Based on the results of 43 institutions reporting,
    a total of 3,620 persons (2,269 FTE) work with SNAP-Ed. Although some
    individuals held multiple degrees, SNAP-Ed faculty and staff hold 754
    bachelor degrees, 450 master's degrees and 54 Ph.D.s in the areas of
    nutrition, health, physical activity and education. Two hundred thirty-
    four (234) held degrees in other fields. In addition, these individuals
    hold the following registrations or licensures: 209 registered and/or
    licensed dietitians, 85 state licensed nutritionists, four state
    licensed in physical activity and 32 other certifications. These
    individual roles are paraprofessional program delivery (54%);
    professional faculty/staff program delivery (30%); administration and
    budget (7%); program leadership (6%) and curriculum and support staff
    (3%).\3\
        These educators deliver research- and evidence-based educational
    programs through both face-to-face and on-line delivery methods. They
    provide technical assistance to producers, consumers, communities and
    businesses. Extension faculty also work closely with local, regional
    and state service agencies and institutions to provide referrals,
    develop community plans, and to provide education to their clients. By
    doing so, Extension faculty are able to meet the needs of participants
    where they live, work, learn, play and pray.
        University of Georgia Extension has developed ``Food eTalk'', an
    online eLearning nutrition education program designed to provide cost-
    effective and efficient nutrition education for low-income populations
    by capitalizing on trends in Internet access and use as well as
    mitigating barriers to attending traditional face-to-face classes.
    ``Food eTalk'' is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. It
    is mobile friendly and designed to be taken at the user's pace and
    lessons do not have to be taken in a specific sequence. An extensive
    multi-year evaluation is underway currently, but clearly demonstrates
    how the Georgia Extension is meeting SNAP participants where they live
    and learn.\2\
        University of Alabama Extension combined research and Extension
    efforts in the program development process when they developed and
    continue to evaluate their ``Body Quest'' program. Alabama Cooperative
    Extension first implemented the child obesity prevention program ``Body
    Quest'' in 1999, and since then program has become a 15 week, multi-
    level program aimed at reducing childhood obesity in third-graders
    through multiple delivery methods. In FY2015, the program was
    implemented to both a treatment and control group of students and their
    parents, which included social marketing, community coalitions, and
    parent and child engagement, among other things. The curriculum
    included materials and iPad applications with [anime]-style cartoon
    characters representing different healthy habits to help make the
    curriculum relatable to the children. By the end of the 15 week period,
    treatment students reported eating more fruits and vegetables offered
    through the School Lunch Program compared to the control group. Parents
    of the treatment group children were given easy to make and inexpensive
    recipes that incorporated more vegetables, and were given other
    information and tips through a texting initiative. A post-survey
    texting poll found that 100% of the parents who received the texts
    enjoyed them, and as a result treatment group parents found that their
    third-graders ate an increased amount of vegetables per day compared to
    the control group.\3\
    Focused on Positive Behavior Change
        The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that more than \1/3\
    (34.9% or 78.6 million) of U.S. adults are obese and 17% (12.7 million)
    of U.S. children and adolescents (ages 2 to 19) suffer from obesity.\4\
        Data indicates that low-income individuals are more likely to be
    overweight and/or obese. Programs such as SNAP-Ed are critical to
    addressing the current obesity epidemic within the United States and
    trying to prevent these numbers from increasing with future
    generations.
        The goal of SNAP-Ed is to improve the likelihood that persons
    eligible for SNAP will make healthy choices within a limited budget and
    choose active lifestyles consistent with the current Dietary Guidelines
    for Americans and MyPlate.\5\
        While not the only SNAP-Ed implementers, LGUs have deep educational
    roots in communities across the United States. This infrastructure,
    coupled with the land-grant mission of providing practical, hands-on
    education, has provided an ideal partnership between SNAP and LGU's.\6\
    Research has shown that exposing children to hands-on activities with
    unfamiliar fruits and vegetables can increase a child's willingness to
    taste these foods.7-8 By understanding the research and
    educational delivery methods, Extension SNAP-Ed programs can focus
    their efforts on positive behavior change.
        Nationally, youth under the age of 18 is the greatest segment of
    the population to participate in SNAP-Ed programs. By targeting a youth
    audience allows SNAP-Ed influences behavior change earlier in life,
    promotes lifelong healthy habits, and helps to influence behavior of
    peers and family members. By adopting healthy eating and physical
    activity behaviors earlier in life, there is a greater likelihood of
    reducing risk of nutrition-related diseases and minimizing future
    healthcare costs.

                          Table 1. Age of Participants
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 FY15 SNAP-Ed \2\          FY14 SNAP \9\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Under 5 Years                        7%                   13.9%
           5-17 Years                       67%                   30.3%
          18-59 Years                       19%                   45.6%
     60 Years & Older                        7%                   10.1%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Extension SNAP-Ed programs are committed to providing education to
    a diverse audience. That audience reflects the SNAP participation
    within each community, state and the nation. Table 2 demonstrates how
    LGU SNAP-Ed programs serve racially and ethnically diverse audiences
    throughout the country.

          Table 2. Race and Ethnic Diversity (46 States Reporting) \2\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              SNAP-Ed Participants       U.S. Population
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Race (2,398,271
          reporting)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    American Indian or                         2.2%                     1.0%
     Alaska Native
    Asian                                      2.0%                     4.8%
    African American                          19.8%                    12.6%
    Native Hawaiian or                         0.5%                     0.2%
     Other Pacific
     Islander
    White                                     69.8%                    72.4%
    Other                                      4.7%                     9.1%
    Unknown                                    0.9%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ethnicity (2,386,463
          reporting)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hispanic                                  17.5%                    16.3%
    Non-Hispanic                              81.4%                    83.7%
    Other                                      1.1%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Offering a Complement of Nutrition & Physical Activity Programs
        Land-grant universities offer a complement of nutrition education
    programs. It is important to understand that, although an entity may
    deliver multiple programs via multiple funding sources, these programs
    are complementary and not duplicative. In addition, program funding
    mechanisms often vary.
        For example, SNAP-Ed funds are distributed to state SNAP agencies.
    The state agency may retain a part or all of the funding. They may also
    choose to grant funding to one or more implementing agencies. States
    may elect to accept a multi-year scope of work but often approve only
    single year plans. Budgets are only allowed to be for a single year
    funding period with the ability to utilize the funding for a period of
    up to 24 months. When plans are for only a single year, program
    continuity and long-term evaluation becomes more difficult. Annual
    funding proposals can also lead to greater turnover or change in the
    type and number of implementing agencies within states.
        In addition to SNAP-Ed, LGUs receive Expanded Food and Nutrition
    Education Program (EFNEP) funding through USDA NIFA. These Smith-Lever
    [(3)(d)] funds are distributed as capacity funding. EFNEP began in 1968
    and is conducted by all Cooperative Extension Services. EFNEP provides
    education utilizing a paraprofessional model in many states. EFNEP is
    grounded in direct education. On average a participant receives an
    average of 9 hours of instruction over 6-18 months utilizing evidence-
    based curricula. They must complete a series of standardized evaluation
    and dietary recalls prior to program graduation. EFNEP is designed to
    reach families with children in the home and low-income youth.
        Extension faculty also utilize local, state, regional and national
    funding from Federal, state, foundation and private sources to fund
    nutrition education opportunities. Each funding source can be used to
    complement and expand the body of knowledge and scope of an
    intervention. For example, University of Missouri SNAP-Ed conducts a
    social marketing campaign entitled ``Live Like Your Life Depends on
    It.'' This campaign is targeted to adults' 35 years and older promoting
    healthy dietary and physical activity behaviors. This campaign utilizes
    billboards, radio and print media as well as posters and flyers to
    promote these messages. SNAP-Ed funding can only be utilized within
    geographic areas where 50% or greater of the population is at or below
    185% of poverty. By leveraging their partnership with the Missouri
    Council on Activity & Nutrition (MOCAN) and its partner agencies, the
    message can be further replicated throughout the state in geographic
    areas where SNAP-Ed cannot fund this effort.
    Improving SNAP Participants Lives and their Food Environments
        Food insecurity affects 14.9% of American households, and rates are
    approaching 25% among black and Hispanic households. Nutritionally poor
    foods are often less expensive than healthful foods, and food
    insecurity is associated with poor diet quality and diet-sensitive
    diseases, including diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Food
    insecurity has also been associated with other behavioral factors
    related to chronic disease self-management and poor disease
    control.\10\
        SNAP-Ed is the educational component of SNAP. SNAP is the nation's
    first line of defense against hunger and a powerful tool to improve
    nutrition among low-income people.\4\ SNAP-Ed is designed to provide
    nutrition and physical activity education to SNAP recipients of all
    ages. While not having a specific food security goal or focus, SNAP-Ed
    supports SNAP's role in addressing food security.\4\ SNAP-Ed is
    grounded in the Social Ecological Model (Figure 2) 11-13
    which demonstrates that education and interventions must occur at the
    individual, policy, system and environmental level of a community.
    SNAP-Ed must now be delivered as a combination of direct education and
    either multi-level interventions and/or public health approaches. All
    curricula and interventions must be evidence-based, meaning they must
    be tested for validity and reliability. Simply put, SNAP-Ed is changing
    participants' health, lives, and their food environments.
    [Figure 2.] A Social Ecological Framework for Nutrition and Physical
            Activity Decisions

        Extension SNAP-Ed programs would all agree that they strive to do
    the following:

       Improve diet quality.

       Increase physical activity.

       Stretch food dollars. (avoid running out of money before the
            month ends).

       Increase healthy food access.

        ``Better Living for Texans'' (BLT) demonstrates how one evidence-
    based program may have several of these goals within itself. BLT is a
    statewide program serving 217 of 254 counties in Texas, and is aimed at
    helping educate how to eat healthier while saving money on their
    grocery bills. BLT offers educational classes, newsletters and other
    services with a goal of providing up-to-date nutritional advice to SNAP
    recipients so that these consumers will be able to make healthier food
    choices. The program has documented positive behavioral changes in its
    participants in many areas, including the ability to prepare nutritious
    family meals; improved food shopping skills; the ability to manage
    their food budget; increased physical activity levels and improved safe
    food handling practices.
        Regardless of the state or the community, Extension faculty are
    working to meet the needs of SNAP-Ed participants where they live,
    work, learn, play and pray. Table 3 provides just a few of the sites
    where Extension SNAP-Ed programs are being delivered.

            Table 3. Delivery Sites Examples (not an exhaustive list)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Direct Education            Policy, Systems, Environments (PSE)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Community Centers                   Farmers' Markets
    Emergency Food Assistance Sites     School & Community Gardens
    Churches                            Retailers
    Healthcare                          Local Government Entities
    Libraries                           Food Producers
    Retailers                           Community Agencies
    SNAP Offices                        Healthcare
    Worksites                           Childcare Providers
    Youth Program sites                 Community Design Agencies
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Finally, I would like to leave you with a few examples of how SNAP-
    Ed delivered by a land-grant universities can make an impact on a local
    community as well as individual SNAP recipients.
        The presence of SNAP-Ed in the Tracy, MN classrooms has led to a
    strategic partnership with others in the school district, such as
    school food service as well as the FFA chapter's community garden.
    Because the school district procures food directly from local
    producers, the SNAP-Ed educator was able to work with the school food
    service director to promote locally grown menu items to the students.
    Through a USDA grant that Tracy Schools received, they were able to
    install a walk-in freezer and cooler which allowed the district to
    purchase greater quantities of produce and created new markets for
    producers. In 2012, University of Minnesota SNAP-Ed evaluated these
    efforts impact on increasing fruit and vegetable consumption. Their
    results are shown in Table 4.

            Table 4. Tracy MN SNAP-Ed Fruit and Vegetable Intake Data
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Increased Fruit       Increased Vegetable
                                    Consumption             Consumption
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Grade 3                       68%                     46%
              Grade 4                       57%                     29%
              Grade 5                       51%                     33%
              Grade 6                       64%                     41%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In Lyon County, Kansas, the SNAP-Ed nutrition educator expanded the
    regularly offered nutrition classes by working with the local grocer to
    provide in-store healthy food demonstrations that correspond with the
    store's weekly sales circular. For many years, the store manager has
    provided discounts on purchases made for SNAP-Ed food demonstrations
    for nutrition classes. Now, the educator has been invited to conduct
    in-store demonstrations with an emphasis on proteins, fruit and
    vegetables. With the assistance of Kansas State University graphic
    artists, recipe card, menu and full sheet recipe templates have been
    created. These items can be localized to promote store-specific
    information. The grocer displays recipe cards with the sale items. The
    local school district also promote these recipes on its parent webpage.
    This community-wide support has resulted in (1) increased sales of
    featured items; (2) customers reporting replicating the recipes at
    home; (3) grocery staff also report making the recipes at home; and one
    person who indicated they were able to ``cook something for dinner that
    wasn't frozen.'' The store manager summarized the project success ``I
    am very happy with the (SNAP-Ed) partnership to provide informational
    resources for our community, in trying to make it a better place to
    live, work and raise a family.'' \14\
        In Missouri, MU Extension faculty developed a number of programs
    for direct education as well as Policy, Systems and Environment (PSE)
    interventions.
        ``Show Me Nutrition'' (SMN) is a comprehensive curriculum that
    teaches youth from preschool to junior high how to adopt a healthy
    lifestyle and make positive behavior changes. The curriculum supports
    both Missouri and national health education standards. Several
    important themes are taught at each grade level, such as nutrition,
    food safety, physical activity, media influence and body image. Each
    grade level is designed to be taught alone or promotes continuity for
    children as they are promoted through school. Age-appropriate content,
    activities and handouts make learning about healthy eating fun for
    students of all ages. The pre-school through fifth grade curricula
    include family newsletters that help engage family members and
    caregivers in supporting their child's education as well as replicating
    the recipes and physical activities at home. Each curriculum also
    includes handouts to reinforce each lesson.\15\ ``Show Me Nutrition''
    has been sold into 47 states and three foreign countries. As of FY2015,
    over 19% of Extension SNAP-Ed programs incorporated SMN into their
    program. Additional non-Extension SNAP-Ed Implementing Agencies also
    utilize the SMN curricula.
        ``Eating from the Garden'' (EFG) is an MU-developed curriculum that
    combines direct education with PSE strategies. EFG provides research-
    based information to high needs youth in schools and community
    programs. Through nutrition education and gardening activities, EFG's
    goal is to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables as well as
    increasing local access to fresh produce. Each school or community
    program that participates is actively involved in the preparation and
    maintenance of the garden site. The local program also determines how
    the produce, in excess of food tastings, is utilized--sent home with
    participants, donated to emergency food sites, used to augment their
    food service program, or as part of a local farmer's market. One school
    worked with their nutrition educator to be referred back to the state
    SNAP agency to determine how they could accept EBT/SNAP benefits if
    they utilized the produce grown in a school-based [farmers'] market.
    The market would be held once a week during after-school pick-up so
    parents could select fresh produce to incorporate into their family's
    meal. Given a poor spring 2016 growing season, they were not able to
    provide adequate produce for their school families, so they invited
    local producers to join their market. This was the only market
    available to a community where over 60% of the school children are
    eligible for free-/reduced-lunch and SNAP recipients. At a separate
    school, one family, whose child participated in EFG, replicated the
    garden effort in their own home. This family reported being able to
    provide adequate produce for their family for over 3 months in 2015,
    thus, stretching their limited food dollars and reducing their reliance
    upon SNAP benefits.
        ``Eat Smart in Parks'' and ``Shop Healthy, Stock Healthy'' are two
    more recent interventions developed to address the policy, system and
    environmental change component of SNAP-Ed and to improve the overall
    food environment of the SNAP audience.
        ``Eat Smart in Parks'' (ESIP) was developed by a statewide
    collaboration, including University of Missouri Extension, Missouri
    Parks and Recreation Association (MPRA), and the Missouri Council for
    Activity & Nutrition (MOCAN) as well as MU Parks, Recreation and
    Tourism faculty and the MU School of Journalism's Health Communication
    Research Center. The goal of ESIP is to promote healthy eating options
    in Missouri state and local parks. Although parks are a valuable
    resource for children and adults to maintain and improve their health
    through exercise and recreation, the high-calorie, salty foods served
    at some parks can quickly negate the benefits of being outside and
    moving more. Parks who participate in the ESIP program receive customer
    research, menu analysis, taste tests, healthy product identification
    and sourcing assistance, marketing materials and healthy food incentive
    ideas. In Fountain Bluff, MO, park customers surveyed indicated they
    wanted healthier options. This research inspired the park manager to
    partner with a local grocery to buy fresh fruit and vegetables packaged
    in small, snack-sized servings. The grocer packages the produce which
    reduces labor and ensures a fresh, quality product. The park manager
    also decided to keep the price point lower and have a smaller profit
    margin on the healthy items to increase sales.\16\
        ``Stock Healthy, Shop Healthy'' is a comprehensive, community-based
    program that allows communities to improve access to healthy,
    affordable foods by working with small food retailers. Millions of
    Americans, many whom are SNAP recipients, have limited access to a
    supermarket, which means they rely on fast food restaurants, gas
    stations and corner stores to feed themselves and their families. This
    often reduces their ability to buy healthy foods and can increase their
    risk for overweight and obesity. ``Stock Healthy, Shop Healthy''
    provides guidance to a community to increase healthy food access by
    engaging small food retailers and community members, therefore,
    addressing supply and demand at the same time.\17\
        Let me close by again thanking Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member
    Peterson, and all of the Committee Members. It has been an honor to be
    able to share just a small portion of the impacts made by Cooperative
    Extension and the land-grant university system through SNAP-Ed.
    [Endnotes]
        \1\ Colleges of Agriculture at Land-grant Universities. Chapter 2.
    History and Overview of the Land-grant System. http://www.nap.edu/read/
    4980/chapter/2. Accessed on 6/15/16.
        \2\ Qualifications of Land-Grant University Staff Delivering SNAP-
    Ed. Land-Grant Program Development Team. June 15, 2016. Unpublished
    data.
        \3\ FY 2015 Land-grant University SNAP-Ed data accessed from SNAP-
    Ed Program Development Team. 6/15/16.
        \4\ http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/index.html.
        \5\ http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-
    program-education-snap-ed.
        \6\ Julie S. Sexton. ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
    Education Through the Land-Grant University System for FY 2010: A
    Retrospective Review.'' Published January 2013. Funded by Cooperative
    Extension Service Directors/Administrators through National Land-Grant
    University SNAP-Ed Assessment.
        \7\ Dazeley P., Houston-Price C. Exposure to foods' non-taste
    sensory properties. A nursery intervention to increase children's
    willingness to try fruit and vegetables. Doi:10.1016/
    j.appet.2014.08.040. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01956
    6314004486.
        \8\ Dazaley P., Houston-Price C., Hill C. Should healthy eating
    programmes incorporate interaction with foods in different sensory
    modalities? A review of the evidence. The British Journal of Nutrition
    108(5): 769-77. 2012.
        \9\ Distribution of SNAP/FSP participation by age and year. USDA
    Economic Research Service http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-
    nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-(snap)/
    charts/snap-participants-by-age.aspx. Accessed 6/15/2015.
        \10\ Grilo S.A., Shallcross A.J., Ogedegbe G., Odedosu T., Levy N.,
    Lehrer S., et al. Food Insecurity and Effectiveness of Behavioral
    Interventions to Reduce Blood Pressure, New York City, 2012-2013. Prev.
    Chronic Dis. 2015; 12:140368. DOI:
    http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd12.140368.
        \11\ What is the Social Ecological Model (SEM), Communication for
    Development (C4D)? www.unicef.org/cbsc/files/Module_1_SEM-C4D.docx.
    Accessed 6/16/16.
        \12\ System, Environmental, and Policy Changes: Using the Social-
    Ecological Model as a Framework for Evaluating Nutrition Education and
    Social Marketing Programs with Low-Income Audiences. Journal of
    Nutrition Education. 2001. Vol. 33(1): S4-S15
        \13\ Social Ecological Model. SNAP-Ed Plan Guidance. https://
    snaped.fns.usda.gov/national-snap-ed/snap-ed-plan-guidance-and-
    templates. Accessed 6/20/2016.
        \14\ Lyon County Grocery Success. Kansas State University.
    Information submitted by Paula Peters. Received 6/17/16.
        \15\ Show Me Nutrition. University of Missouri. http://
    extension.missouri.edu/p/SMN100. Accessed 6/15/16.
        \16\ Eat Smart in Parks. University of Missouri. http://
    extension.missouri.edu/mocan/eatsmartinparks/. Accessed 6/15/16.
        \17\ Shop Healthy, Stock Healthy. University of Missouri. http://
    extension.missouri.edu/stockhealthy/. Accessed 6/15/16.

        The Chairman. The doctor's time has expired.
        Well, thank you, all four of you, for terrifically
    inspiring testimony.
        The chair would remind Members that they will be recognized
    for questioning in order of seniority for Members who were here
    at the start of the hearing. After that, Members will be
    recognized in order of arrival. And I appreciate Members'
    understanding.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Sharma, the Brighter Bites has an extensive network of
    private-sector businesses, as you mentioned, H-E-B and Sysco,
    as well as nonprofits. How do you sell them on your idea and
    get them to support your overall mission, and can you tell us
    how integral they are to the success of what you have done so
    far?
        Dr. Sharma. Thank you for this important question. The key
    is alignment of mission and alignment of expertise. H-E-B and
    Sysco Foods have been our strong partners, and one example that
    H-E-B is that community engagement is not just something that
    they do, but it is at the foundation of how the company works.
    And for Sysco Foods, Rich Dachman, who is the Vice President
    for Produce for Sysco Foods, is on the board of Brighter Bites,
    and the mission for Sysco Foods is how to healthfully feed our
    families. And so there is alignment of mission and that is
    critical when you are looking for this for-profit-nonprofit
    partnership. And alignment of expertise. We have leverages on
    the Sysco Foods ability of having 9,000 trucks that run daily
    around the country, and they have relationships with the
    farmers so they can then directly aggregate the excess produce
    and bring it in to the food banks, who can then bring the
    produce to our Brighter Bites locations.
        The Chairman. There are a lot of things going on in Texas.
    Feeding Texas, the A&M Extension Service, represented by Dr.
    Britt-Rankin, all of them get SNAP-Ed grants. How do you
    coordinate with them so you are not overlapping and serving the
    same populations?
        Dr. Sharma. Thank you again. It is a very important
    question. We do not want to duplicate efforts. We do not want
    to reinvent the wheel. And we have leveraged on the
    infrastructure of a lot of our partners, like local food banks
    who we work with in produce procurement, inventory and
    delivery. We also work with Feeding Texas that actually
    oversees the 21 food banks in the State of Texas. And we are
    working with them closely, and Feeding Texas, as you know,
    receives funding from the USDA, on developing a statewide model
    for nutrition education. For Texas Agriculture Extension
    services at A&M: first, we are working with them very closely
    too, they have been funded for school gardens, where you are
    creating the seed-to-plate nutrition education, material and
    information for the children, and with Brighter Bites they get
    to try the produce at home. We are linking the school and the
    home, and we are doing it by really leveraging the expertise of
    our partners and not duplicating the efforts.
        The Chairman. You mentioned as part of your bio that you
    have some expertise in measurements and we are all interested
    in success, reducing the obesity rates and lowering the rates
    of chronic illnesses. Talk to us a little bit about how you see
    your role in evaluating Brighter Bites, walk us through what
    you evaluate and how you define success.
        Dr. Sharma. Thank you for the opportunity to answer that
    question. We have seen very compelling results with Brighter
    Bites. We have tracked our families for the last 4 years. We
    collect data on all our families and the schools that----
        The Chairman. Do you have health data on the individuals or
    weight data?
        Dr. Sharma. We have weight. We track children's weight. We
    have the weight of the children, so we track that. And our
    rates of obesity in the children that are in our population are
    higher than the national average. It is 42 percent of our
    children are overweight or obese. And we are going back, this
    year we are going back and seeing if the children who were in
    the Brighter Bites programs, what does their weight gain
    trajectory look like for 2 years that they have now been in the
    program. So we are tracking health metrics.
        The Chairman. You are saying there was a 42 percent obesity
    rate at the beginning of your program, and they were----
        Dr. Sharma. First-grade children.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Dr. Sharma. Yes.
        The Chairman. Go ahead.
        Dr. Sharma. Yes, first-graders. And we are doing a project
    with Texas Children's Hospital where we are actually looking at
    stool samples of children who are receiving Brighter Bites,
    because if you have a healthy gut, bacteria, that is sort of
    the window into your health. And so we are looking at stool
    samples of children who are receiving fruits and vegetables to
    see how that impacts the gut bacteria as well. Which is another
    really important health marker as well. So we are tracking
    metrics both at the behavioral as well as the health level.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you very much. Again, I
    appreciate all four of you being here this morning.
        The Ranking Member, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Britt-Rankin,
    the University of Minnesota Extension has a SNAP education
    program in Staples, which I mentioned earlier, is partly in my
    district and partly in Mr. Nolan's district. This program
    called Choose Health not only provides qualified families with
    fresh produce, through a CSA community board agriculture share,
    but also offers classes on some ways to cook the fruits and
    vegetables that they are given.
        My question is, what is the more important and effective
    piece of this model? Is it the availability of the food, or is
    it learning how to cook it?
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. I would say it is a combination. I think
    you have the skills. You may know of our----
        The Chairman. You need to turn your microphone on please.
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. My apologies. I would say it is a
    combination. We know that many of our young people today are
    almost two generations from having cooking skills. And so we
    have to know how to prepare the food, but we have to have
    access as well. We know that nutrition education, if we have
    lessons that are encouraging people to increase their fruits
    and vegetables, if there are none available in their local
    community, they can't put that to use. So they need the hands-
    on, we know there is research to show that hands-on
    opportunities to prepare the foods we are talking about,
    increase the likelihood that they are going to keep those in
    their diet and prepare those long-term. But we do have to have
    the access. So it is really a combination.
        Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Ms. Foerster, I recently read a
    history of SNAP and am fascinated by the evolution of the
    program, from the old days of coupons and surpluses to the
    program that we oversee today. And in some ways, the topic that
    we are here to discuss, SNAP education, mirrors one of the
    major challenges that the Committee faces in setting policy for
    farmers. And that challenge is that the majority of the people
    in this country are detached from agriculture. Knowledge about
    agriculture and our food supply used to be common information,
    as was knowledge about nutrition and cooking. And, you used to
    have home economics in school. But I don't want to date myself
    too much.
        Why is it that so many of our citizens are not able to do a
    good job of food preparation, and how do we solve this problem?
    SNAP education has a large role to play, but what other things
    can we be doing to help re-educate the American public on how
    to cook instead of going to the fast-food place?
        Ms. Foerster. Thank you very much for the question. In
    terms of being an historian, what we see now with SNAP-Ed is
    that it has evolved from boots-on-the-ground understanding,
    what it is that people want. What we see in low-income
    communities is acute concern about overweight in children,
    about high rates of diabetes and hypertension, early heart
    attacks, and that sort of thing, which, when people learn that
    these are rooted in poor dietary practices and physical
    inactivity, they get very much interested in how they can be
    doing better, and they start looking at the food supply. And so
    we see a resurgence really of farm-to-fork, farm to local
    agriculture, farmers coming into schools, chefs being
    interested in local produce, these kinds of things that can
    really get people engaged in where their food comes from.
        With SNAP-Ed, we are trying to go upstream. Part of what
    happens after nutrition education is done is that people do get
    interested in their food supply, how to cook, culinary careers
    that people can get into, high school or chefs and so forth,
    moms, even just becoming interested in the heritage of the food
    that maybe their culture had been interested in, and being
    concerned about what food is offered in the stores where they
    shop. It is evolving naturally that low-income people as well
    as others are watching where the food comes from, they are
    interested in gardens, community gardens, they are interested
    in selling the produce that they might be able to grow there.
    There is a lot of opportunity that we have with the connection
    between SNAP, SNAP-Ed and agriculture being very strong. Food
    policy councils, for example, are a growing institution that
    looks at entire food systems, it could be a rural area or an
    urban area.
        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Gibbs, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
    witnesses for being here.
        I have a couple of questions. The first thing I want to try
    to talk about, I guess to Dr. Rankin. The SNAP-Ed and the EFNEP
    have similar goals but they are separate programs, and funded
    separately. Can you bullet point differences of the two
    programs, and if a SNAP recipient participated in both
    programs, would they be getting different information from the
    programs?
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. Thank you for the question.
        Mr. Gibbs. Microphone.
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. Thank you for the question. To compare
    and contrast first. EFNEP, as you said, it is capacity funding
    directly to land-grant institutions from USDA and NIFA. SNAP-Ed
    is a grant program that goes to the state SNAP agencies. EFNEP
    targets families with children in the home and youth groups,
    where SNAP-Ed is all SNAP recipients.
        Program delivery for EFNEP is grounded in long-term, deep,
    rich nutrition education. For adults, there is an enrollment
    process, a graduation process, looking very much at dietary
    intake with food recalls----
        Mr. Gibbs. So we are really talking behavioral changes
    eating and----
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. It does change. SNAP-Ed uses multiple
    methods. They may use single session, multi-session, as Dr.
    Sharma says, up to 16 weeks. So it can go--we are in the school
    district--in schools maybe year-round. However, we have the
    additional, the policies, the systems, the environments, as we
    have talked about, the gardens, the farm-to-fork those are
    complementary and look at the community system that we may not
    do as much of EFNEP. I would say that basic nutrition, food
    preparation, safe food handling doesn't change depending on the
    funding source. However, SNAP-Ed complements the direct
    education, which is the foundation.
        Mr. Gibbs. Okay. Okay, I want to move on.
        Dr. Sharma talked about in her testimony that in the last
    30 years, obesity rates in children have doubled, and as you
    know there is a 12 percent increase in intake of fruits, so it
    has improved somewhat. The question I want to get to is
    coordination between the SNAP people, education, SNAP-Ed and
    all that, and the schools, and the USDA and the School Lunch
    Program. And I know the Ranking Member mentioned home
    economics. Behavioral change is possible, physical activity,
    and it seems to me that especially for our children, that has
    to go hand in hand.
        And so I guess my question really is what can we do as
    policymakers to really encourage more coordination between all
    the agencies involved, and so we are doing the right education
    on eating behavioral changes, but also physical activity and
    all that?
        Dr. Sharma. Thank you for the important question. At
    Brighter Bites, we implement CATCH, which is Texas Education
    Agency approved. It is a coordinated school health program that
    is implemented in the schools, which includes very strong
    nutrition, physical activity, and a food service component.
    Schools are trained and empowered in implementing all of these
    components, and integrating into the day-to-day lives of the
    kids. It is a holistic approach where you have the nutrition,
    physical activity, and a food service component. So you are
    sort of elevating the opportunities.
        Mr. Gibbs. When you started this program, Brighter Bites,
    what were the hurdles to get everybody working together. Were
    there state law changes, or how did that come about?
        Dr. Sharma. It was the formula that we intended. We wanted
    to link the school with the home, and we wanted to combine
    access with education. So that is where we brought in the food
    banks to procure the donated produce, and the schools to
    implement CATCH, and then we work very closely with the
    families where we integrate both these messages and link it to
    the home so they can practice these behaviors.
        Mr. Gibbs. Okay. In this program, do you have challenges
    working with the schools to encourage more physical activity?
    How is that intertwined with that?
        Dr. Sharma. We train the schools. We work with the schools
    very closely, and we actually provide them with the equipment
    that they need to implement the nutrition and physical activity
    components. Schools will get basketballs, volleyballs, hula-
    hoops, whatever it is to make physical activity fun and keep
    the kids moving, while they are learning to eat healthier. It
    is a combination of both.
        Mr. Gibbs. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Dr. Sharma. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This
    is indeed a very interesting hearing, but it is very important
    that we get to the focus of this hearing. And the focus of this
    hearing is to determine the budget for SNAP education. I have
    been here 14 years, and SNAP education has been a target.
        I would like to give each of you an opportunity to state
    for the record how you measure the success, what evidence do
    you have to show, and how do you make what you are doing
    accountable to the taxpayers, because we need that in order to
    help us maintain the funding for what you are doing. So share
    with us how you measure the success of the program.
        Well, why don't you start, Dr. Wisdom?
        Ms. Foerster. Thank you.
        Dr. Wisdom. Thank----
        Ms. Foerster. I am sorry.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well, I have another question.
    What I am after here is that we have these hearings, but we
    need to get to the meat and potatoes here. Your programs are
    being targeted. Right now, you are at $414 million. It is clear
    to me this is a very, very serious issue, and oftentimes, you
    are not given the opportunity to say here is how we are
    measuring the success, here is what happened, here is where we
    started this year, here is where we are now, this is what we
    have accomplished. I want to give you an opportunity to plead
    your case here.
        Okay, Ms. Foerster.
        Ms. Foerster. Thank you for the question. The SNAP-Ed
    evaluation framework that you have in my testimony attempts to
    put together the major endpoints that experts recommend are
    needed for good nutrition in the country, for food insecurity,
    physical activity, and obesity prevention. And so what this
    framework does is put together 51 indicators, I know that
    sounds very bureaucratic, but it puts together 51 indicators,
    each of which has specific metrics that a state or locality can
    mark their progress against, and that as a national level we
    can compile these data across state lines to provide you with
    information about how the program is doing, what are the
    successes that it is having. Ultimately, we are aiming for
    health changes in the entire population, and I mentioned 90
    million people. What we think we can do is give you that data
    about changes that are occurring for individuals in
    organizations that the individuals frequent, and in the
    communities where people live.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Okay. Well, we have some
    specific programs like Health MP. In other words, I guess what
    I am looking for, if you take a measurement of where we were in
    2012, and then here we are in 2016, is there any numerical data
    that we could have of how many children, how many young people
    were effectively losing the weight? I mean that is what we need
    when we point to this, because this SNAP program is always in
    constant jeopardy. I would like to have some numbers that show:
    here is what we did in this state. If we don't show real
    visible things that we can communicate to the American people
    and here in Congress to really illustrate how many students,
    how many young people we were able to help, and give us some
    success stories.
        Ms. Foerster. We are starting to be able to do that across
    the country, and compile those individual results. There is a
    dose response relationship where, in communities where enough
    interventions are being done, enough help is being provided to
    the community, that is where you are going to see the changes.
    You won't see them statewide. You are going to see them where
    there is enough density of intervention in order to show. In a
    way, it is a natural control group that where we can do enough,
    we change.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Okay. I have like 20 seconds,
    and I do want to make a point. Dr. Sharma, you really hit it
    when you mentioned that over the past 30 years, obesity in
    children has doubled. Now, that gives a reason for what we are
    doing.
        Do you see a relationship between that 30 year period and
    when the schools stopped having physical education as a course
    every day? Don't you think there is some correlation with that?
        Dr. Sharma. Yes, and also with the home economics program.
    The shifts have definitely lowered the opportunities for the
    children while they are at school, where they spend a majority
    of their time, to practice these healthy behaviors. And we are
    tracking the obesity rates in our children. The families that
    go through Brighter Bites, we track their heights and weights,
    and we monitor them as they are going through the program. And
    we have data for the last 3 years on the families.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. And wouldn't it be good if we
    could maybe begin the process of reinstituting that physical
    education class in the schools?
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Sharma. Yes.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Austin Scott, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think that last question about physical education got a
    lot of yeses from up here. As I looked around, people nodding
    their heads. I think our family life today has a tremendous
    impact on it as well. It seems that parents have less time with
    their kids, and so when you do have the time with them, you
    want them to be happy, and sometimes what makes them happy and
    what is right for them isn't necessarily the same thing. I am
    thinking of maybe Dairy Queen and----
        Mr. Gibbs. Pick on Dairy Queen.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia.--things. Well, all right, I
    won't pick on Dairy Queen. I think you understand what I am
    saying. But thank you for what you do.
        And I guess my question is: we talk about what people eat a
    lot, but the serving size is just something that has amazed me
    is they have continued to get larger and larger and larger, and
    what was a large Coke when I was a child, when you went through
    the driveway today is a small Coke. And how much emphasis is
    there on portion sizes, and what is being done or not being
    done with regard to that?
        Dr. Wisdom. I would be delighted to answer that question,
    to at least start off the conversation. And that is a very,
    very important question because many individuals do not
    understand what a portion size is. They think a portion size is
    whatever they put on their plate. That is a portion, that is a
    serving. So one thing that SNAP-Ed does in a very deliberate,
    intentional, and a repetitive way is to help individuals and
    families understand, children, adults, entire family units,
    understand the importance of portion size and how that has to
    be understood as well as monitored.
        What we do in our program at Henry Ford Health System is
    we, for one, simplify what portion size is. We help them
    understand through very simple methods such as using their hand
    as a source of understanding what is 3 ounces? The palm of an
    adult-size hand. What is a cup? A fist. What is a teaspoon? The
    tip of the thumb. What is an ounce? The entire thumb. So we try
    to find ways to engage the youth as well as the families in
    very simple ways so that they can make very thoughtful
    decisions around portion size on a regular basis, without
    having cups and necessarily those tools at hand when they are
    making that decision. And we repeat those messages over and
    over again. We keep it very simple, very repetitive, and we
    have youth that are very clearly understanding what portion
    sizes are, if they are deviating from the recommended portion
    size. Through that simplification and repetition, we are
    driving that message home, the importance of portion size.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Ma'am?
        Dr. Sharma. Thank you for the important question. And
    Brighter Bites as well, we work with the families using hands-
    on techniques, and part of that is working with them using the
    MyPlate. Half of your plate should be fruits and vegetables,
    and you have to have a well-balanced diet where you have the
    other meats and dairy and other components as well.
        We have seen that our families demonstrated a twofold
    increase in the knowledge of using portion sizes as part of
    planning their meal.
        Empowering the families and just sort of demystifying this
    information is critical because there is intimidation of
    produce, there is intimidation in how much do I serve to my
    family.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes.
        Dr. Sharma. We really work with the families in sort of
    breaking these pieces down, using the simple MyPlate
    guidelines, half your plate fruits and vegetables, to sort of
    send home these messages in a very easy, concise, and a
    repetitive way. Thank you.
        Ms. Foerster. And a third area would be that in working
    with other food service operations, whether it would be with a
    worksite food service or in schools, other places like that,
    the portion sizes that are offered on the plate and the
    distribution to have, say, more fruits and vegetables and fewer
    fried foods, that sort of thing, that is kind of the upstream
    way of trying to de-normalize in other areas of people's lives
    how much food is being eaten.
        We are all really looking forward to the new nutrition
    labels as well that are going to kind of demystify how much
    food is in that container, because a big single serving of a
    soft drink is not one portion. That is a very important aspect.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. That is right, and I am----
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. I would just add, extension programs
    across the country are utilizing many of the things that our
    first three presenters, I would also say that we have children
    that are bringing materials home to the families, so that we
    can replicate this in the home. We are trying to empower this
    population to advocate. We see children, and we have had a
    number of school food service tell us, that the children have
    come, they realize their portion was not the full-sized portion
    of vegetables, because they were trying to reduce food waste,
    and these children, after nutrition education, are actually
    saying we are not getting our full serving. We would like our
    full serving.
        Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am out of
    time, but I would just reiterate that everybody was nodding
    their head when it came to the question of physical education
    in the school systems, and making sure that our kids get enough
    exercise, because they sure don't seem to be getting it.
        The Chairman. I agree with the gentleman. The gentleman's
    time has expired.
        Mr. McGovern, 5 minutes.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you. First of all, let me start by
    voicing my strong support for SNAP-Ed and thank you for all the
    work that you all do. And I appreciate all the great work being
    done in my district with the support of USDA SNAP-Ed program.
    The University of Massachusetts Extension School, which is
    based in Amherst, is one of my state's SNAP-Ed implementing
    agencies, and in Fiscal Year 2015 alone, UMASS partnered with
    over 80 community agencies and organizations to provide
    nutrition education to over 60,000 adults and children in
    Massachusetts. And because of this programming, children began
    eating fruits, vegetables, and whole grains more often, they
    increased their levels of physical activity. I have been to a
    SNAP-Ed class, and I learned about issues about what
    constitutes an appropriate portion, and how to cook things with
    alternative ingredients to make them healthier and more
    nutritious. And at that class that I attended, there were two
    issues that were raised, and one was some of the people didn't
    have access to supermarkets, which made it more complicated for
    them to be able to comply with all that they learned, and the
    other was basically that the SNAP benefit is really inadequate.
    We can talk about all the different ways to improve SNAP-Ed,
    and we should, and we ought to. This is a good investment of
    taxpayer dollars, but we also need to admit that boosting SNAP
    benefits would improve the diets of low-income households.
    Sometimes the discussions we have here don't reflect the
    realities all throughout country. Often, as we talk about SNAP
    here in Washington, people think it is this extravagant
    benefit. The average benefit is about $1.40 per person, per
    meal, per day.
        I would like to get your input. Would you agree with me
    that if we boosted SNAP benefits, we would improve the diets of
    low-income households, and that combined with proper SNAP
    education would yield an even better result? Maybe we will
    begin with Dr. Wisdom.
        Dr. Wisdom. Thank you for the question. And I agree
    completely with the concept of boosting SNAP benefits combined
    with the education. One way that we are doing it in the interim
    is, in Michigan particularly, through the Double Up Food Bucks
    approach where, for SNAP-eligible families when they use their
    EBT card, they actually can receive double the amount of
    Michigan-grown produce.
        Mr. McGovern. And we have a similar program in
    Massachusetts too.
        Dr. Wisdom. Excellent.
        Mr. McGovern. Yes.
        Dr. Wisdom. So that is one way that we are, in the interim,
    finding ways to augment what people can do in terms of
    educating them around that, and then showing them how to
    prepare meals together. And particularly related to the portion
    aspect we co-educate parents or caregivers with the child so
    that they understand portion size together, they understand
    nutrition together. Then we give each family, after they have
    prepared a meal together, we have them prepare four separate
    meals on four different occasions, and then do a supermarket
    tour. But we also leverage dollars through the health system,
    and we give them each, covered through the health system, a $10
    bag of groceries to replicate that recipe again at home.
        Mr. McGovern. Right.
        Dr. Wisdom. What we are finding are families are waiting
    for, and adults are waiting for, their children to come home so
    they can cook together. There is a lot of interest in the
    culinary arts, and moving in that direction, social work.
        Mr. McGovern. Right.
        Dr. Wisdom. So we are finding a ripple effect of the core
    significant funding that has been provided through the SNAP
    education program.
        Mr. McGovern. And one of the things I remind people all the
    time, a lot of the SNAP families work. It is not like they have
    all the time in the world to do preparation of foods and stuff
    for the week. But, we ought to be moving this discussion at
    some point toward how we boost the overall SNAP benefit.
        I have about 43 seconds left, but I am just curious to hear
    quickly what you all think.
        Ms. Foerster. Well, the fact that SNAP is equal throughout
    the country is one factor, that the SNAP benefit is not
    adjusted for cost of living around the country is a factor.
    Fruits and vegetables are the most price-sensitive foods and so
    smaller stores, for example, we can help with getting better
    supply chains, particularly with local fruits and vegetables,
    so that the price differential in small stores is less.
        In addition, the incentive programs, stores may not offer
    any lower prices to SNAP participants than to other customers.
    That is something that could be looked at in terms of trying to
    make that dollar stretch.
        Mr. McGovern. I am out of time, but, again, I appreciate
    your responses in writing or thumbs up that we ought to be
    increasing the benefit. Thank you, because that is where the
    focus of this Congress ought to be, instead of block-granting
    or cutting or revamping a child nutrition bill that would make
    it more difficult for kids to get meals in schools or during
    the summer.
        But I thank you very much. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mrs. Walorski.
        Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to our
    witnesses for being here and lending your expertise as we
    continue our review of the past, present, and future of SNAP.
        I chair the Committee's Nutrition Subcommittee, which has
    been heavily involved in this review. I want to point out this
    is the first hearing this Committee has held on the SNAP-Ed
    program in a very long time, so I am especially glad you are
    all here today, and to ensure that our review is a
    comprehensive one.
        And that said, my question is how much conversation has
    gone on about all this integration in schools. And two things
    strike me listening to these conversations. First, I am from
    the Midwest where we have frozen tundra. Fresh fruits and
    vegetables only last seasonally. They are expensive because
    they are so seasonal. And I can relate to your world in
    Detroit, Michigan, probably more than anybody else's here,
    maybe Missouri. But so much of this conversation is talking
    about the integration in schools. And our schools in the State
    of Indiana, our curriculum--I am married to a public school
    teacher, I can tell you on behalf of all school teachers in my
    state, there is so much curriculum mandated, there is no room
    for anything else. And fighting for phys. ed. and physical time
    outside is a question all of its own. But I also feel like,
    when we are talking about this education program, I also feel
    like we are pushing upstream because the whole country is
    eating and doing the things that we are trying to tell a very
    small group of people not to do. I know that the funding is
    targeted to a very small specific group of people, but, for
    example, and I am not sure who to direct this to, maybe Dr.
    Britt-Rankin, I don't know, Dr. Sharma, but what are we doing,
    and maybe it doesn't matter because you guys geographically are
    in places that grow food all the time, but the frozen food
    industry has to play such a large role in this because, for
    those of us in the country where we live in frozen tundra,
    there is no food available.
        And then second, for places where, in the Midwest, outdoor
    activities like playgrounds, basketballs and soccer balls, and
    that kind of stuff, don't exist when it is frozen tundra. So
    now you are relegated to inside activities. How does that all
    play in places where you don't have the luxury of sun 365 days
    a year?
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. I would say that in many of our extension
    programs, we have tried to bring in ag faculty to work with
    producers. We have worked with school districts, FFA, ag
    teachers, to think about how can they add high tunnels * when
    it is cold outside in Missouri, and how can we extend that
    growing season. We have a lot of school districts that are very
    interested in incorporating this, so how can we make this more
    possible.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * Editor's note: High tunnels, also called high hoops or hoop
    houses, are temporary structures that extend the growing season.
    (http://articles.extension.org/pages/18358/introduction-to-high-
    tunnels)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We went to our nutrition and exercise physiology faculty
    across the country. They are looking at how do we increase
    activity not just at recess, but throughout our educational
    processes. So oftentimes, a nutrition lesson is always
    complemented with physical activity, even if it is for a few
    minutes, getting kids up, getting the moving, even in the
    classroom.
        Mrs. Walorski. But what about the issue that SNAP
    recipients are watching the same TV programs everybody else is,
    they are going to the same apps online everybody else, they are
    doing the same thing, I mean they are people in our country,
    they are in our nation, being exposed to everything the
    majority of people are. So is there a way to broader educate
    the general population, knowing you are going to be educating
    SNAP recipients as well?
        Dr. Wisdom. Go ahead, and I will follow up.
        Dr. Sharma. Thank you for the important question. The
    answer is yes. Everybody needs to eat healthy, and the social
    norms, if you will, where a majority of our population is
    practicing behaviors that probably need to change. We have
    partnered with the FN We Campaign, that is a social marketing
    campaign, for example, that exposes the entire population with
    regards to the benefits of eating fruits and vegetables, and a
    variety of fruits and vegetables. We want to get people excited
    about eating healthy food. And it is everybody, which is why in
    Brighter Bites we work with the entire school, and we work with
    the entire communities that we are in, and we are linking these
    behaviors and these environments that the child spends a
    majority of their time in, and that is what we need to do to
    move these social norms towards----
        Mrs. Walorski. Right. Yes. And I appreciate that, but I
    guess to respond to Representative McGovern's point, I don't
    look at this as just the issue of throwing more money into a
    situation just by saying, ``Hey, if we throw more money at
    this, it is going to be better.'' Statistics in this country
    prove that is not true. It is a behavior modification. And if
    that is the case it is the same behavior happening all over
    this country. Couldn't we do better then, modeling some of the
    things that you all have done, but being able to do that, which
    really integrates Internet and apps and the things that kids
    are going--and the things our whole country is accessing?
        Dr. Wisdom. Right. That is an excellent question, and we
    are using the core funds of SNAP-Ed to help drive policy
    systems and environmental change in many dimensions.
        Let me just give you a few examples in terms of messaging
    for the general population. We message with our SNAP-Ed
    families, the 5,210 messages around the consumption of fiber,
    more fruits and vegetables per day, 1 hour physical activity,
    non-recreational screen time, limiting it to 2 hours or less
    per day, 1 hour physical activity, and zero sugar-added
    beverages. We take that messaging and we work with our SNAP-Ed-
    eligible families, but we also disseminate that same messaging
    in our faith-based organizations, in our clinic settings with
    our students. So we do that in multiple ways.
        Mrs. Walorski. I have to stop you there because I am out of
    time, but I appreciate it. Thanks so much for you all being
    here and for your expertise.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. DelBene, 5 minutes.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of
    our witnesses for being here today on this important topic, and
    for the work that you are doing.
        We were talking about the challenges of the amount of the
    SNAP benefit, and the expense of fresh fruits and vegetables
    and the challenges that that poses, and also the perishability
    and how critical it is, if you do have access, that you are
    able to use it right away.
        I wanted to ask you, Ms. Foerster. I know the dieticians
    recently published a report on food waste, and so I was
    wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about what is
    being done to educate consumers on food waste, and how can
    states do a better job? I know we have been focused a lot on
    composting in my region, in Washington State, but also making
    sure that a food can be used right away is also important,
    especially when you have limited resources. So I would love
    your feedback.
        Ms. Foerster. Thank you for the question. We are teaching
    people that all farms fit. So whether it is fresh, frozen,
    canned, or dried, that all the fruits and vegetables are
    beneficial for health. We do, in terms of menu planning,
    perishability is an issue if people are only shopping once a
    month because that is when their benefits come in, then they do
    need to be helped to figure out how to have their fruits and
    vegetables last through the month, and how to balance. This is
    where the corner stores having an adequate supply of fruits and
    vegetables at a reasonable cost and quality really comes in.
    But in terms of the fruits and vegetables, I think that that is
    an area that people really want the fresh fruit and vegetable
    access.
        We do have a job to do in frozen, and also people do have
    challenges sometimes with their refrigeration and freezing
    capacity. So there are a lot of other barriers that have to be
    dealt with.
        Ms. DelBene. Yes. Do others have feedback on what we can do
    to help address food waste?
        Dr. Sharma. In Brighter Bites, we work with the local food
    banks and with our for-profit partners, like Sysco Foods, to
    help aggregate the produce that would otherwise be discarded.
    They have an ongoing relationship with the farmers, and we
    optimize that relationship to then get the produce to the food
    banks. And then we work with the food banks and leverage their
    infrastructure, to then purposefully channel this produce in a
    continuous way using a co-op concept, so we engage the families
    and empower then, and then get this produce for a continuous 16
    weeks in the school year.
        We use schools because it is a trusted venue for parents to
    come and engage with the school as well. From a food waste
    perspective, again to answer your question, it is leveraging on
    the expertise of for-profit and other nonprofits that we have
    been able to now push out over 8 million pounds of produce to
    our families.
        Ms. DelBene. Yes. Thank you.
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. It is also important to think about the
    education side of this. Eating fruits and vegetables in-season
    when the costs are lower, knowing the portion size that we have
    addressed earlier, talking with our partners about aggregation.
    It is a holistic approach that, not just one agency, but we are
    going to have to work in concert together to address the food
    waste issue.
        Ms. DelBene. One of the other things that we have done in
    our state is, when there is waste, to help educate families
    about composting, and we actually have composting in our
    cities, so it is all used together, but it has brought people
    closer to understanding agriculture and the process, and how
    they can be more involved in that awareness about agriculture
    and what our farmers are doing has been very, very important in
    terms of broad education on how our food comes to our table.
        Ms. Foerster. Well, and if I may add, food policy councils
    typically will be dealing with food waste on a large scale.
    Whether it is food waste from restaurants or unused food from
    supermarkets, that kind of thing, whether it goes into a food
    bank system or it does have to be composted for energy, that is
    a lot of what food policy councils do deal with. So it goes
    from seed to composting, I suppose you could say. And that is
    going to vary a bit around the country or around different
    communities, but that is part of what SNAP-Ed does, trying to
    assist on behalf of low-income communities.
        Ms. DelBene. Thanks. My time has expired. I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mr. Newhouse, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome everyone. I
    appreciate you being here to talk about this important issue.
        I just had a couple of questions for all of you, to begin
    with. More and more we see industry initiatives that are
    designed to give consumers more options to help people make
    better-informed choices. Some examples could include lower
    calorie options or smaller portions, or something that I have
    heard of, the facts up-front, which list calories, fat, sodium,
    the things that people are interested in, on the packaging
    itself.
        How do you guys see this working with other nutrition
    education efforts, and what are your thoughts on these
    voluntary programs, and can they be effective with SNAP
    recipients? And we will start with you, Dr. Wisdom.
        Dr. Wisdom. Well, thank you for that question. And
    certainly, consumers are receiving more and more options in
    terms of what is available to them. What we have been doing is
    identifying ways that we can, for one, increase the healthy
    options that they have available to them. Through our efforts,
    we do grocery store tours, we have farmers' markets, in order
    to help them, not just educate them about what are the healthy
    options, but to ensure that they have the ability to access
    those healthy options, because oftentimes people make choices
    based on what is available to them. They have limited options,
    and we try to expose them to as many options, and have them
    pick the right option in that particular setting.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you.
        Ms. Foerster. I work closely with table grape industry, and
    one of the things that we do need to do there is do more of our
    marketing and promotion aimed at low-income audiences.
    Typically, the marketing that is done is to a more middle-
    income marketplace. And so the market segmentation to reach
    low-income consumers or consumers that don't speak English, for
    example, that is a really important thing to be doing,
    promoting the food not just making it, so that there could be
    cross-promotions as well. We have done that with WIC in
    California, where shelf markers can point people from the WIC
    foods over to the produce section, or the produce section back
    to the milk section, that kind of thing, to augment and bring
    alive the combinations and trying to get healthier foods in a
    real way, not just producing them, but promoting them,
    marketing them, pricing, cross-promotions, those kinds of
    things are all important things that can be done, targeted to
    low-income audiences.
        Mr. Newhouse. In a more coordinated way.
        Ms. Foerster. Yes.
        Mr. Newhouse. Yes.
        Ms. Foerster. Yes.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you.
        Dr. Sharma. Thank you for the question. It is such an
    important concept of educating your consumer. Right? So in
    Brighter Bites, the families actually get 30 pounds of fresh
    produce every week. And so they get a risk-free trial to try
    eight to 12 different kinds of fruits and veggies in their
    bags. And then while they are getting the food, we also work
    with them on how do you read a label, right, how do you read
    nutrition facts labels. And so on one side, they get to try
    these foods and develop a taste for it, so you are creating
    demand for a product.
        Mr. Newhouse. We hope.
        Dr. Sharma. Right.
        Mr. Newhouse. Yes.
        Dr. Sharma. And then you are making them a more informed
    consumer of that produce so they can use the SNAP dollars, and
    when they go to the grocery store they can then buy the fruits
    and veggies and the foods that they know that their children
    now eat.
        We had a mom: just a quick story. We had a mom who told us
    that she wouldn't buy Brussels sprouts because she didn't know
    if her kids would like it. But through Brighter Bites, she now
    knows her kids like Brussels sprouts. So even when she doesn't
    get it through our bags, she goes to the grocery store and buys
    it.
        Mr. Newhouse. Good. Good.
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. I would just add that the education of
    how to read the labels, as we are seeing new labels, so we do
    create informed consumers. But, especially in this population
    we have found, partnering with Feeding America across the
    country is doing grocery store tours. We see a lot of marketing
    dollars. There are more marketing dollars than there are
    nutrition education dollars. Taking people into those places
    where they are going to make choices, whether it is a
    supermarket or whether it is a farmers' market, and providing
    them hands-on information, be able to compare and contrast
    products so that they can make those choices then long-term,
    even when they have graduated from the program, they have moved
    off SNAP, they are continuing to make those choices, and we
    need that hands-on education.
        Mr. Newhouse. So we are actually seeing some changes in
    behavior in purchasing as a result. That is great.
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. Yes.
        Mr. Newhouse. My time has expired. Thank you very much
    again. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Ms. Fudge, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
    all so much for being here today.
        There is an old saying that people would do better if they
    knew better. I think that it is especially important that you
    are here to talk about SNAP-Ed today, because I do believe that
    people do better when they know better.
        Dr. Wisdom, in your written testimony you mentioned that
    many of the communities where SNAP recipients live are
    considered food swamps. Please take a moment to explain how
    food swamps differ from food deserts.
        Dr. Wisdom. Thank you for that question. Food deserts, I
    will start off with that, is considered where there is a dearth
    of food for individuals to easily gain access to them. When we
    talk about food swamps, and oftentimes it is in some
    communities a myth that there is truly a food desert because it
    is a matter of people not having access to the food when they
    need it. So there is plenty of food but it is an access issue.
        When we talk about food swamps, it is more the aspect of
    having a plethora of fast food restaurants, of corner stores
    where there is a lack of receiving that healthy and nutritious
    food. So there are a lot of eating venues where individuals can
    access, however, they are not healthy, so we call those food
    swamps.
        Ms. Fudge. Like most poor neighborhoods in urban
    communities.
        Dr. Wisdom. Exactly.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
        Dr. Wisdom. Sure.
        Ms. Fudge. Dr. Britt-Rankin, I am a proud graduate of the
    Ohio State University, Ohio State University and Case Western
    Reserve University have collaborated to develop a tool based on
    best practices that would help determine which policy system or
    environmental intervention would prove most effective for a
    community. Tell me how important that is.
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. I think that is very important. First of
    all, we are leveraging the expertise of two great institutions,
    but it is going to create a tool, an online tool where
    communities can assess where they can be most successful. They
    are going to be able to utilize that data to understand which
    strategies will address the needs that are in their local
    communities. So they are really going to tailor this program to
    their specific neighborhood and community.
        Ms. Fudge. I hope to see more of that across the country. I
    think it is especially important, especially in districts like
    mine.
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. Yes.
        Ms. Fudge. I am just going to throw this out. In the
    Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, it expanded the whole purpose of
    SNAP-Ed, right, to include public health-based approaches. Talk
    to me about the focus of this whole concept. Just anybody,
    whoever wants to address it, please feel free.
        Ms. Foerster. Thank you for that opportunity. The Healthy
    Hunger-Free Kids Act really came out of the expressed
    experience of states as they provided nutrition education and
    social marketing, and kind of went up the trail as to what else
    was needed and where were the gaps in the program. We knew we
    needed to do more about physical activity before, that is the
    flipside of obesity.
        Ms. Fudge. Sure.
        Ms. Foerster. So we got involved in that. More on obesity
    prevention. And so when you do that, you go upstream to the
    environment that we have been talking about and realizing that
    all of those factors that people live in and experience, and it
    is all of us, it is not solely low-income people, but the
    resource is so much lower in low-income communities, and some
    of the adverse environments are so much harder, that we really
    needed to focus in a way that the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act
    outlines. We are focusing now on organizational change, whether
    it is schools, churches, worksites, and so forth, and we are
    focusing on community-wide change, and on state-level change,
    so that Departments of Education are working with Departments
    of Health, are working with extension, working with Indian
    Tribal organizations and so forth, we are all really trying to
    pull together. And when you look at that, you see these 51
    indicators that we have been talking about that represent what
    we think SNAP-Ed can stimulate. We are not going to do it
    ourselves, we are going to do it with others. But we are going
    to provide a kind of a backbone for this kind of work. We are
    here permanently. We are not going to be a 3 year grant or a 5
    year grant, we are going to be there to keep the ball rolling,
    because this is long-term work.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much. My time is about to expire.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        Dan Benishek, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I am late. I
    was at another hearing.
        Dr. Wisdom, I am from Michigan too, and actually, I trained
    a little bit at Henry Ford, probably before you were born, but
    tell me more about Henry Ford's partnerships with community and
    faith-based organizations, and how far does this network extend
    through the state? I represent the northern half of Michigan,
    so I don't get down to the Detroit area too often myself. Can
    you tell me about that a little bit?
        Dr. Wisdom. Sure. I would be delighted to talk about that.
    Henry Ford Health System's effort is located primarily in
    Detroit, in Macomb County, and it addresses the individuals
    primary in the area. However, if we look at the entire state,
    and that is the Michigan Fitness Foundation that leads all 49
    programs that are occurring across the state, including in the
    Upper Peninsula, what that network or consortium of sorts does
    is we learn from each other. So the efforts that are occurring
    at Henry Ford, we use the Cooking Matters model, we are in
    many, many schools, we are in faith-based organizations, we are
    in neighborhood service organizations, we are in homeless
    shelters we are in a lot of settings.
        Mr. Benishek. Let me ask you a question, and this maybe
    somebody else would like to comment too on this issue, is that
    the level of knowledge amongst the people that you reach do you
    have any assessment of that? I mean as far as nutritional
    content of meals, sometimes it seems to me that people don't
    have enough information, or they don't know enough about how to
    make a nutritious meal and they end up--not that I disparage
    fried food so much, foods that aren't maybe consistent with the
    protein and nutritional requirements. Is there any way that you
    assess that knowledge as you do these educational endeavors?
        Dr. Wisdom. Yes. Through some of our assessments, we use
    that pre-post design where we assess them before the
    intervention, and then we have six sessions; four of which are
    cooking classes, where we bring a student and a parent or a
    caregiver together and they learn how to cook a meal together,
    including cutting onions. We keep the classes to about 20. And
    then we give them, through the leveraging the dollars of Henry
    Ford Health System, we give them a $10 bag of groceries to
    replicate that same recipe at home with their family.
        So we do see that and we have those sessions, and then a
    grocery store tour as well in order to help the families
    understand and that pre-post design we find an improvement in
    the outcome.
        Mr. Benishek. Dr. Sharma, you seem like you are interested
    in giving a comment there. I am kind of interested in what is
    the pre-educational level of understanding amongst the people
    that you see?
        Dr. Sharma. Yes, we did a nonrandomized control trial in
    760 low-income families that----
        Mr. Benishek. A nonrandomized trial?
        Dr. Sharma. Yes, a nonrandomized trial. It was a cluster
    randomized. It wasn't randomized at the individual level. And
    we found that at baseline, these were first-grade children, and
    they were eating less than one serving of fruit and \1/2\ a
    serving of vegetable a day, and less than \1/2\ a serving of
    whole grains. And the frequency of cooking at home was less
    than 2 days a week. The frequency of cooking, and their
    understanding of using nutrition facts labels to make a
    purchasing decision, and using it in their shopping behaviors
    was also very low. So it was translating the knowledge part and
    the behavioral part were both starting at low levels.
        Mr. Benishek. What were they eating then if they weren't
    making food at home?
        Dr. Sharma. A majority of their calories, in our sample, a
    majority of their calories--we excluded french-fries when we
    computed the vegetables, french-fries actually constituted a
    majority of the vegetable intake, and added sugars.
        Mr. Benishek. Purchased french-fries, not even homemade
    french-fries.
        Dr. Sharma. We weren't able to distinguish that part.
        Mr. Benishek. Duck fat french-fries.
        Dr. Sharma. But, we asked them about fried potatoes and
    french-fries, and that was a majority of the vegetable intake.
    And there was also a high intake of foods that had added
    sugars, and processed food.
        Mr. Benishek. All right. It seems as though I am just a
    little out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
    ask the question.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Graham, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all so
    much for being here today.
        I represent the north part of Florida, it is very rural. I
    don't know, but I guess it is both a food desert and a food
    swamp in different areas. My background: I worked in a school
    district in Tallahassee, and we served about 30,000 students,
    and I was always frustrated with having students come in, pre-K
    or kindergarten, and I kept saying to folks we really, really
    need to get to these kids earlier. We need to get books in
    their hands earlier, we need to be working with families
    younger, recommended having a program where we worked with the
    hospitals. And as I am listening to this discussion, that same
    concern that I have, and, Dr. Sharma, you just actually gave me
    a great segue, that by the time kids get to school, their
    eating habits have already been established. And the birth of a
    child is such a new opportunity for families, and they would be
    open to wanting their children to eat as healthy as possible.
        Are there any programs that are getting to families at the
    earliest ages in the hospitals or when children are born? Thank
    you.
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. I would not say when they are born and in
    the hospital, but we have worked extensively across the country
    in extension, working with trying to get childcare providers,
    preschool, childcare providers to offer healthier options, to
    involve the children, to provide education. Many of our
    programs also use reading programs. So as you are reading books
    to children and they are beginning to read, many of those books
    are on healthy eating practices. And we follow that up then
    with education with their parents. I do believe that research
    will show you that most of our eating patterns are established
    by the age of 7. Addressing the preschool age is also
    important.
        Ms. Foerster. Yes, I would like to mention a program that
    Arizona SNAP-Ed created, and that was in working with their
    Social Services Department, which was upgrading the licensing
    standards for daycare facilities. There was an increased fee
    that was associated with it, but the state forgave that
    increased fee if the licensee would agree to certain standards
    related to nutrition and physical activity.
        We, in California, developed a self-assessment tool for
    daycare providers to use to see what they were doing, starting
    with breastfeeding, could they handle a breastfed child, all
    the way to gardens, to having water, engaging activities for
    the children, and so forth. So there are some proven effective
    models that are in our toolkit.
        North Carolina has done some things too. One of the factors
    that we have in our framework is the degree to which daycare
    programs are adopting these kinds of self-imposed standards.
    They are not regulatory, but they are sort of going over and
    above whatever the licensing requirements are.
        Dr. Sharma. Brighter Bites, the program that I am
    representing, the organization, we actually do operate in Head
    Start centers, so starting with early childhood, and we are
    partnering with University of Texas physicians actually to
    pilot Brighter Bites with pregnant women and women with
    infants, because you start with pregnancy and establish those
    healthy patterns in the mom, it is going to affect the unborn
    child and their trajectory later in life.
        Dr. Wisdom. And at Henry Ford, we have done the same thing.
    We are working at daycare centers, but also we have just most
    recently implemented a centering pregnancy model, incorporating
    community health workers where women come in for prenatal care
    as a group, and that is a perfect opportunity for now for us to
    layer in among those under-served women the SNAP-Ed education
    program.
        Ms. Graham. Well, that is terrific. I have heard, Dr.
    Sharma, you have a program that you are working with. I would
    love to follow up with you and get some more information, and
    as well as you, Dr. Wisdom. And it is good that we are doing
    this. We are missing an opportunity to work with prenatal care,
    as well as at the earliest stages in the hospital when women
    are there, and families and parents, and husbands and partners,
    to have them want to get their children off on the best eating
    path for the rest of their life. So maybe that is something we
    could consider, is finding hospitals that would be willing to
    pilot some sort of a program across our country.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        Ms. Kuster, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
    you so much to all of you for this conversation. It is vitally
    important to the well-being of our future and our children.
        I am curious, in this whole discussion, our society has
    changed so much and we are oftentimes dealing with families,
    particularly low-income families, that may be working multiple
    jobs, that may have difficulties with transportation. I come
    from a rural district, so sadly, there are places where you
    have to travel a long way to get healthy food. The sad part is
    that these are areas where we used to grow the food in the
    backyard, but people literally just don't have the time or the
    inclination, or the education.
        I am wondering if you have found ways to help families cope
    when time is the resource that is missing in their life. We can
    talk about teaching them to make recipes, but I am a working
    mom, and when I was raising my two kids and taking care of my
    mother with Alzheimer's, and my husband and I were trying to
    get back and forth to work, and the doctor and the dentist and
    the baseball game, and get the homework done. It is hard to
    have time, it is hard to buy fresh ingredients and have them
    still fresh by the time you get around to a day when you do
    have time. So this is a sort of open-ended question, but for
    any of you. I will just add, I feel as though the grocery
    industry is responding with vegetables that are precut, salads
    that are mixed in a bag, because if you are limited in funds,
    you don't want to waste money on half the vegetables that you
    won't get to.
        So if you can just respond, how can we be helpful in
    encouraging the industry, agriculture generally, to get to the
    place where consumers' lives are really at?
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. I will jump in.
        Ms. Kuster. Thank you.
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. I would agree with you. I think that is
    one of the strengths that we see across the land-grant system
    of having faculty in almost every county in the state, across
    the country. And meeting people where they are if you are
    working two and three jobs, you may not be up to coming home
    and fixing a full dinner. One of the things that we have
    addressed is we also see pantries that say we don't have fresh.
    Is there a way people can eat healthy even if it is frozen or
    canned. And so it is providing the information: one of the
    earlier questions mentioned technology. Can we incorporate
    technology. So we are educating, when people are at the point
    that they are ready to learn, and how do we address that at all
    levels. It is very important to think about, we don't want
    people to feel that they are failing if they are not at home.
        Ms. Kuster. Right. I think that is what I am saying is
    let's not layer on the guilt to the working mom because she is
    not making the sliced potatoes au gratin from scratch, or
    whatever.
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. Yes.
        Ms. Kuster. And by the way, when you mentioned that about
    the fresh, we have done a number of events that are very well
    received during the season when fruits and vegetables are
    available in our farmers' markets and the two-for-one SNAP
    benefits is really great, and gives the farmers some
    reliability too. It improves their marketing.
        Dr. Britt-Rankin. Yes.
        Ms. Kuster. Yes, anyone else want to add? Dr. Sharma?
        Dr. Sharma. Thank you for this important question. And just
    to add to what Dr. Britt-Rankin said, with Brighter Bites we
    really want to elevate the environment that the family and the
    child lives in with the school and the home. We work with the
    schools so the families and the children are exposed to a
    healthier environment while they are there. But we actually
    send the produce home, so the kids get 30 pounds of fresh
    produce every week. So the families then get to try this risk-
    free. And then working with the families to develop skills; how
    do you cut mushrooms. One of the moms, actually, this is a true
    story, a couple of years ago there was a mushroom, we sent
    mushrooms and the parents didn't know, what do I do with it.
        Ms. Kuster. Sure.
        Dr. Sharma. Right.
        Ms. Kuster. Sure.
        Dr. Sharma. So we worked with them on how do you cut it,
    store it, and effectively use it in a one-pot recipe that can
    last you a few days in your refrigerator, and that canned,
    frozen are equally nutritious as fresh. When you are going
    shopping and using your SNAP dollars, that you can make those
    substitutions that works for your family. We have to empower
    our family so they can make the healthier choice. And we have
    to make the healthier choice, the easier choice.
        Ms. Kuster. Well, the trick for me as a working mom was the
    crock pot. So maybe if we just give every family a crock pot.
    And I used to call her Ms. Crocker, when I would come home with
    the kids and the house smelled great, and I would pretend that
    I had a housekeeper named Ms. Crocker. So thank you very much.
        Thank you, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. Thank you.
        Well, witnesses, thank you very much. It is clear from the
    testimony that you have touched on almost every jurisdiction of
    our Committee. From farmers selling more fruits and vegetables,
    or the food waste issue we had a hearing on in May, where you
    have Sysco gathering up perfectly fine nutritious vegetables
    that just aren't pretty enough to be sold at the local H-E-B.
    As well as the work that they are doing with SNAP recipients.
    Your work is really impressive. It also illustrates there is no
    one-size-fits-all program, no solution that can be developed
    here in Washington, D.C., that we can cram down the throats of
    everybody out there; that we really need this opportunity for
    you to be innovative and to work with what works with your
    particular populations, your particular circumstances.
        We didn't talk much about rural America, which I represent,
    most of District 11 is rural. They have their own particular
    challenges. I am aware of one program where they, at least once
    a month, set up a common distribution point in the rural
    countryside where they will bring in fresh produce and
    vegetables that families can take home. Again, trying to tailor
    programs according to the circumstances their community members
    find themselves in.
        I would also like to include in today's record a hearing
    testimony from the Land-Grant University SNAP-Ed Program
    Development Team, PDT, which includes family and consumer
    science program leaders and other university administrators,
    SNAP-Ed coordinators, an office manager, NFIA representative,
    who are committed to improving the consistency and
    effectiveness of SNAP-Ed programming through cooperative
    extension, and addressing national health and nutritional-
    related programs facing low-income populations. Apparently, a
    paid commercial for the extension program.
        [The information referred to is located on p. 803.]
        The Chairman. David Scott talked about what is probably the
    most important thing, and that is how do we measure success and
    how do we define success. We track all kinds of metrics that
    are important. I am not convinced that the number of folks
    served or the pounds served, while important, give us a sense
    of the scope of the issue. I am not convinced that those
    necessarily are metrics for success. We do need to define those
    metrics, and track them. We also have to put in expectations
    for how long something should take before we see an impact. No
    program will cure obesity overnight. They didn't become obese
    overnight, and they are not going to get to a healthy weight
    overnight either. It is important to understand that point
    because, as Mr. McGovern and others have said, ``We will face
    limited resources in 2018 when we begin to authorize the farm
    bill.'' Having your testimony today and the successes that you
    have been able to share with us, particularly the young woman
    who was directly affected by the program where she spent a
    summer doing the right things for her, not because anybody
    instructed her to, but because she was motivated by the
    interactions she had, and the peer pressure to better herself
    more than she was, and then that next fall she was a part of
    the activity programs that are going on. And that, at least in
    that anecdote, you can describe that.
        My colleague from New Mexico has joined us just in the nick
    of time. So, Ms. Lujan Grisham, if you have questions for 5
    minutes, you are recognized.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. And I will be brief. And I really
    appreciate your recognition, Mr. Chairman. And we tease each
    other. It is more productive for a Member like me to be here
    for the whole hearing, I have a couple of other hearings today,
    but this is an issue that is really important not only to me
    personally as a Member, but certainly to my state. And the
    Chairman is very gracious to give me every opportunity to
    engage.
        And as we are talking about what we can do to make sure,
    and, of course, I offered an amendment to stop the elimination
    of SNAP-Ed funding, and I know that we have issues in Congress
    to deal with, our priorities and how we adequately fund them,
    but from my perspective, and certainly from my state's, where
    we have persistent poverty and some of the hungriest
    populations, including the hungriest children in the country,
    it is an issue we have to address.
        And I have two things I want to say quickly, and then just
    ask about the evaluation of health outcomes through investments
    in SNAP education. First, Mr. Chairman, I visited a school in
    my district and I participated in a SNAP education program that
    was also a cooking program, and I met a young student, probably
    a first-grader, maybe a second-grader, and they were using
    fresh tomatoes that had been either grown right at the school
    or donated by one of the connecting farm projects. And this
    child had never seen a fresh tomato. Had no idea what it was.
    And I take that for granted every single day. I knew what
    tomatoes were, I can guarantee you, as a toddler, and I have an
    11 month old grandchild, and while some of the more acidic
    fruits and vegetables are not all that recommended, she has
    access to every kind of fresh fruit and vegetable. And so it is
    not something that occurred to me, and it really hit home about
    how valuable it is, if we want to encourage healthy outcomes
    and change behaviors, and give people the tools that they need,
    with the benefits that we are providing. There is a program
    called CHILE (Child Health Initiative for Lifelong Eating and
    Exercise) in New Mexico, which is a SNAP education program,
    that really is showing that we have better health outcomes.
        The second issue, and I don't know that you can tie both of
    these together quickly, but, I do the SNAP challenge as a
    Member of Congress, and I can tell you--I tell this story all
    the time, there is no way for $1.50 a meal I can get the kinds
    of things that are nutritious. So if we don't do something
    about that, then we can do lots of education, we can partner up
    with grocery stores, but in the end if you don't have the
    resources to afford that, even with farmers programs that are
    involved, you aren't going to have a healthy, nutritious meal
    as a result. And that is our bad, in my opinion.
        So talk to me about health outcomes, evaluations, and how
    we can drive those benefits up.
        Ms. Foerster. So that is the area that we are working on
    across the country with the land-grants and with all of the
    SNAP-Ed implementing agencies. And there is no one solution
    that is going to create those health outcomes. That is why we
    are trying to take a holistic approach with a socio-ecological,
    as well as direct education approach. And it is going to take a
    while. So what we are trying to do is create, or we have
    created, short, medium, and long-term outcomes so that states
    themselves can track how they are doing. We can compare notes,
    we can figure out what we are doing together.
        Partnerships with foundations, with hospitals, with all
    kinds of other stakeholders, that is something that we hold
    ourselves accountable because we cannot do it on $400 million.
    And so we are trying to give those kinds of data that will lead
    to the population changes.
        My own belief is that some of the more positive results
    that are starting to accrue for young children, very young
    children, are probably a combined effect of the programs that
    we see.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Like CHILE in my state, which has really
    partnered with Head Start, so it starts early.
        Ms. Foerster. Exactly. And then the other kinds of daycare
    programs, the WIC Program, and so forth. I think that we are
    going to be seeing some changes, it is way easier to deal with
    obesity before it happens, so we are going to be seeing changes
    in school-age kids before we are going to be seeing changes in
    adults. And we just have to be realistic that once somebody
    gains weight, it is very hard to get rid of it. The
    expectations that were mentioned earlier, we really have to put
    that together, and to recognize that this is a very big
    problem. It is something that only the collective impact of all
    of us pulling together at the food assistance programs, but
    also the foundations, the CDC programs, the nonprofits, all of
    us are going to have to be pulling together toward the same
    important things. And that is really what we have been trying
    to do with the framework is identify what are the most
    important things for low-income communities, low-income people,
    that we can all pull together, because there is so much that
    needs to be done. We have narrowed it down to 51 things.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today.
        Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
    hearing will be open for 10 calendar days to receive additional
    material and supplementary written responses from the witnesses
    to any question posed by a Member, or to any additional
    information you would like to provide us with respect to our
    subject matter.
        This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
    Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
      Submitted Statement by Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
      Congress from Texas; on Behalf of Pat Bebo, M.S., R.D.N., Ohio State
     University Extension; on Behalf of SNAP-Ed Program Development Team,
                  Land-grant University Cooperative Extension
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
    Committee, it is an honor to be invited to submit this written
    testimony for the record on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program-Education (SNAP-Ed). I submit this testimony as a
    representative of the Land-grant University Cooperative Extension SNAP-
    Ed Program Development Team (PDT). The SNAP-Ed PDT serves as an ongoing
    advisory board for national Land-grant University Cooperative Extension
    Service (CES) Leadership. Team members use their experience,
    communication, analytical and critical thinking skills to strengthen
    Land-grant University (LGU) based SNAP-Ed programs and other nutrition
    networks at the state, regional, and national levels. They also
    identify linkages that can be forged to support the land-grant
    university system's broader outreach and engagement, education, and
    research mission.
        I currently serve as a member of PDT, and am the Ohio State
    University Extension Interim Assistant Director for the Family and
    Consumers Sciences Program, which includes SNAP-Ed and Expanded Food
    and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). I hold a Bachelor's Degree in
    Exercise Science from UMASS Boston, a Master's Degree in Nutrition from
    Framingham State University and I am a Registered Dietitian/
    Nutritionist. Previously I served as Regional SNAP-Ed/EFNEP Program
    Leader with the University of Massachusetts Extension, serving the
    lower southeast region of Massachusetts.
    SNAP-Ed Past
        SNAP-Ed as a program has a long history beginning with the 1977
    Food Stamp Act in response to bipartisan calls for reform.

       1977 Act's language was a requirement for nutrition
            education based upon the EFNEP model.

         ``USDA to extend the EFNEP to the greatest extent
                possible to reach FSP participants.'' ``USDA to develop
                printed materials specifically designed for persons with
                low reading comprehension levels on how to buy and prepare
                more nutritious and economic meals and on the relationship
                between food and good health.''

       1981 Food Stamp and Commodity Distribution Amendments of
            1981.

         ``To encourage the purchase of nutritious foods, the
                Secretary is authorized to extend food and nutrition
                education to reach food stamp program participants . . .''.

       1988 Hunger Prevention Act.

         Authorized Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program
                (FSNEP) as an optional administrative expense funded
                through state/local match that would qualify for Federal
                Financial Participation.

         Pilot FSNEP begun through University of Wisconsin
                Extension.

       1990 Mickey Leland Domestic Hunger Relief Act.

         Authorized the Secretary to assign nutrition education
                of eligible households to the Cooperative Extension
                Service.

       1992 Seven LGUs, via Extension, delivered FSNEP programming.

       From 1995 to present FSNEP was expanded to all 50 states and
            D.C., implementers are from a variety of public and private
            organizations based on state agency decisions; today 33% of all
            SNAP-Ed programs are implemented by LGUs, the largest single
            implementer; clearer missions and goals for the program were
            established; state plans with specific programming and
            evaluation outlines required; FSNEP was renamed SNAP-Ed after
            the name of the food stamp program was changed to SNAP. Other
            programmatic, evaluation and funding changes have been noted in
            other submitted testimony.

        Clearly CES has a long, productive relationship with SNAP-Ed, from
    the program pilot to its current structure. Since 1914, the core
    mission of CES has been to improve the lives of people of all ages and
    from all walks of life through education--taking the university to the
    people, in rural, urban and suburban communities throughout each state,
    the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. America's land-grant
    universities have the knowledge, expertise and infrastructure needed to
    help address health and nutrition issues. Through county Extension
    offices, universities have the community presence and local credibility
    needed to influence the social, economic, and environmental
    determinants of health. Evidence-based interventions, deployed in ways
    that are respectful of community individual and family norms, beliefs,
    and current practice have been shown to keep people healthy, and delay
    or prevent the need for medical care, (Cooperative Extension's National
    Framework for Health and Wellness, 2014).
        Cooperative Extension works with public, specifically the USDA
    National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and private sector
    partners and the LGU system to integrate research, education, and
    Extension perspectives to address critical issues. Families at risk,
    and individuals with limited financial resources, are a key target
    audience.
        SNAP-Ed differs from EFNEP. The EFNEP model, developed in 1969, is
    a strict direct education model. Trained paraprofessionals deliver a
    prescribed series of nutrition education lessons to a prescribed
    audience--low-income families with young children and youth. EFNEP over
    the years has developed standard outcome measures that have allowed the
    program to show change across the country with a national online
    reporting system.
        The SNAP-Ed audience first and foremost includes SNAP recipients
    through the lifespan from birth to seniors. This includes adult
    individuals and those with families and youth from preschool to high
    school. SNAP-Ed is a program that works cooperatively in states with
    oversight from state SNAP agencies and USDA Food and Nutrition Service
    (FNS). FNS, starting in 1995, began to layer in multi-level activities
    understanding from research that direct education on its own cannot
    bring about long-term change. This was evidenced by the development of
    grants to establish social marketing nutrition networks.
        In 2010, the Healthy, Hunger[-]Free Kids Act (HHFKA) redirected
    SNAP-Ed to create a new grant program with a focus on interventions
    that not only included direct nutrition education, but also physical
    activity, obesity prevention, and community and public health
    approaches to the SNAP-Ed framework. The act also removed the match
    component of the program which expanded opportunities for implementing
    agencies to collaborate with agencies and programs that were prohibited
    in the past, including state SNAP agencies. In 2007, the cost of the
    program with match was $\1/2\ billion. The HHFKA capped the program at
    $400 million and redistributed funds to states based on a formula that
    includes state SNAP participation.
        Currently SNAP-Ed reporting consists primarily of short term and
    some medium term outcomes, but strong research evidence, as noted in
    the Academy of Nutrition Evidence Analysis Library, indicates that
    effective intervention strategies have been identified to assist food-
    insecure individuals in meeting their nutritional needs that includes
    multi-level interventions with nutrition education. In addition
    research shows that direct nutrition education interventions, such as
    those provided by SNAP-Ed, have been shown to increase food security
    among low-resource audiences.
    SNAP-Ed Present
        Starting in 2002, the PDT has periodically published a report on
    the progress on the provision of nutrition education, evaluation and
    outcomes as they relate to LGU implementation of the SNAP-Ed program.
    (https://nifa.usda.gov/snap-ed-lgu-reports) A 2015 report is in final
    approval phase. Since the first LGU SNAP-Ed national report was
    completed, FNS has developed an annual data collection system for SNAP-
    Ed providers called the Education and Administrative Reporting System
    (EARS). To simplify data collection by states, the second LGU SNAP-Ed
    national report incorporated selected elements of EARS where feasible
    for the Community Nutrition Education (CNE) Logic Model framework that
    was used to collect the data.
        While not the only SNAP-Ed implementers, LGU's bring unique
    strengths and contributions to SNAP-Ed. LGU SNAP-Ed provides direct
    access to researchers studying childhood obesity, healthy lifestyles,
    nutrition education programming and curriculum, and public health
    approaches to policy, system and environmental (PSE) change. In
    addition, LGUs, as part of their mission, are experts at translating
    current research into educational messages and programs targeted to
    specific audiences.
        The rich history of needs assessment and community engagement,
    being rooted in communities throughout each state, and engaging
    community stakeholders and participants through advisory groups, makes
    LGUs and Extension a unique and impactful partner. The research based
    education in collaboration with other Extension program areas (Family
    and Consumer Sciences, 4-H Youth Development, Ag and Natural Resources,
    and Community Development) and state and community stakeholders creates
    a synergistic multiplier effect in urban as well as rural environments.

              SNAP-Ed is community-based programming that follows the
            socio-ecological approach of change considering the impact of
            programming in the context of individuals and families, their
            communities, and the policies, systems and structures that
            affect their lives. Julie S. Sexton (2013) ``Supplemental
            Nutrition Assistance Program Education through Land-Grant
            University System for FY 2010: A Retrospective Review.'' Page
            7.

        LGU SNAP-Ed is rooted in four primary domains as shown in Figure 1
    that form the basis for all program plans.
    Figure 1. SNAP-Ed Program Domains

        The 2015 LGU direct education interventions reached 1.8 million
    people with 94% of clients participating in SNAP. Direct education is
    community focused, based on needs assessments and is learner centered
    and behavior focused for the most impact. SNAP-Ed Federal guidance
    ensures that the direct education model, based on the Dietary
    Guidelines for Americans, includes hands-on skill building lessons on
    basic cooking as well as nutrition.

        Massachusetts direct education focused on youth:

       UMASS Extension SNAP-Ed's major focus for Direct Education
            is providing lesson series to youth in schools with community
            eligibility or >50% eligible for school meals. This focus helps
            to:

         reach the greatest number of SNAP families in a cost
                efficient manner.

         inspire classroom teachers to continue to focus on
                good nutrition and physical activity with their students.

         create collaborations with schools that foster PSE
                activities/changes that directly affect SNAP families and
                amplifies the direct education.

       35,439 school age youth were reached in FY 2014 and 52,879
            were reached in FY 2015 with workshop series. Parents of the
            youth were reached through newsletters that follow up each
            lesson and engage the entire family. Curricula used included
            CATCH, Show Me Nutrition, and Team Nutrition.

       Evaluation results show that this SNAP-Ed programming
            resulted in the following statistically significant changes
            with youth, for both years:

         Eating vegetables more often.

         Eating fruits more often.

         Being physically active more often.

         Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages less often.

         Choosing whole grains more often.

        Youth-focused nutrition education has been shown to have positive
    outcomes and increase the possibility for PSE changes as evidenced by
    the following University of Massachusetts outcomes.

       A sampling of school based PSE Changes include:

         96% of classroom teachers where SNAP-Ed is taught have
                reinforced the nutrition information with their students
                during other class time.

         82% of classroom teachers where SNAP-Ed is taught have
                made behavior changes such as healthier meal and/or snack
                choices and become more physically active themselves.
    Indirect Education
        Indirect education is also an important component of communicating
    with SNAP-Ed target audiences. In 2015, 18,542 indirect activities were
    carried out by LGU SNAP-Ed programs reaching over 103 million
    participants.

        Michigan: Michigan Fresh:

        Michigan Fresh, a Michigan State University Extension (MSUE)
    website, offers a range of educational resources to help people
    experience the state's locally grown fruits and vegetables, meats, and
    other locally produced products that can be bought at local farmer's
    markets. The website offers fact sheets that cover topics such as
    preservation techniques and safe storage for different types of
    vegetables and fruits, gardening tips and recipes. This information is
    offered in English, as well as Spanish and Arabic. Along with MSUE,
    Michigan Fresh works to educate minority groups, including tribal
    communities, the cognitively impaired and the hard of hearing, on the
    benefits of good nutrition. The program also provides tours of farmer's
    markets to help acquaint SNAP eligible individuals with the local,
    nutritional foods found at the market.
        Social marketing through indirect education has been shown to have
    positive effects when combined with direct education. A study looking
    at the Iowa Nutrition Network's social marketing campaign, BASICS Plus,
    showed that gaining parents' attention and engaging them in healthy
    eating practices for their children can be a useful way to increase the
    effectiveness of school based education programs. (Blitstein, et al. J.
    Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2016)

        Louisiana: Let's Eat for the Health of It:

        ``Let's Eat for the Health of It'' is a social marketing campaign
    that was run by the Louisiana State University AgCenter Extension that
    focuses on increasing the public's awareness of the many benefits of
    diet that includes more fruits and vegetables, setting aside time for
    family meals, and increasing physical activity. Information was
    disseminated through billboards, posters, outdoor banners, brochures
    and other handouts. Overall, the goal was that increased exposure to
    this kind of information would help people select healthier foods and
    make other healthy behavior choices. A telephone survey of 600
    individuals, post campaign, found that \1/2\ of all survey respondents
    had been exposed to the campaign materials and that a majority of them
    expressed a readiness to adopt healthier behavior patterns.
    Community Partnerships
        As noted earlier LGU SNAP-Ed uses strong community relationships to
    develop impactful programming and create a forceful multiplier effect.

        Washington: Mobile Food Bank Partnership with Second Harvest Food
    Bank:

        Second Harvest Food Bank approached Washington State University
    (WSU) Extension SNAP-Ed in Spokane with a problem: they had too many
    fresh fruits and vegetables to distribute, and wondered if WSU could
    help them get the produce to SNAP-eligible individuals. WSU SNAP Ed
    partnered with Second Harvest and together they helped to increase
    access to fresh and healthy foods through Family Night events held at
    local schools, Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) feeding sites and
    outreach to low-income neighborhoods. Second Harvest was able to
    distribute fresh produce during the Family Night events via its mobile
    food bank. In 2015 these efforts culminated in reaching 3,000 families
    through 34 school sites and 500 families through the summer feeding
    sites. The mobile food bank was able to distribute over 1.3 million
    pounds of food through school visits, and 2,500 pounds at the summer
    feeding sites. The partnership with Second Harvest was so successful
    that Second Harvest dedicated a delivery van to be used exclusively as
    a mobile food bank by WSU SNAP Ed. The success of this partnership also
    led to the expansion of the WSU SNAP Ed program to include produce
    tastings at local libraries, senior low-income housing, and the Police
    Athletic League Summer Basketball Camps.
        Teaching children where their food comes from and multiplies the
    impact of Extension program areas by combining nutrition education with
    agriculture and youth development. Community garden projects are
    especially strong around the country and research has shown they can
    increase fruit and vegetable consumption among children. (Heim, et al.
    JADA, 2009)

        Ohio: How Does Your Garden Grow?

        A unique multi-organizational partnership has come together in
    southern Ohio using gardening to provide a valuable learning
    opportunity for under-served children in a 10 week summer program. The
    collaboration, involving Ohio State University Extension Ag and Natural
    Resources, 4-H Youth Development, SNAP, Scioto County Soil and Water
    Conservation District, Findlay Manor retirement center and the 14th
    Street Community Center, has established a community garden where youth
    learn about community service, gardening, and nutrition in an
    intergenerational program. Professionals met with the children at the
    garden three times per week where the children planted, weeded,
    watered, raked, and tended to their garden every Monday. On these
    ``Measuring Mondays,'' each child would measure the height, number of
    leaves, blooms, and fruit of their own plant.
        Not only did the children learn how to plant a garden but they also
    learned the importance of growing their own food, the cost
    effectiveness of planting a garden, working together, team building,
    nutrition, responsibility, confidence, the benefits of physical
    activity and following directions. Among several goals of the program
    was to teach children about nutrition and eating healthy. Children love
    to try new foods, when they have grown the food themselves and this can
    have a positive impact on lifelong eating habits.
    Food Resource Management
        Managing a food budget is especially important for SNAP recipients
    to make the most of their food dollars.

        Texas: Better Living for Texans:

        ``Better Living for Texans'' (BLT) is a statewide program serving
    217 out of 254 counties in Texas, and is aimed at helping educate both
    children and adults on how to eat healthier while saving money on their
    grocery bills. BLT offers educational classes, newsletters and other
    services at no cost to the participants in order to provide up-to-date
    nutritional advice, particularly to SNAP recipients, so that consumers
    can make healthier food choices. The program has documented positive
    behavioral changes in its participants in many areas, including better
    food shopping and food budgeting practices, better food safety and the
    ability to prepare nutritious family meals.
    Physical Activity
        In addition to creating better eating behaviors, SNAP-Ed also
    focuses on physical education whether it is incorporated into nutrition
    education classes, part of a larger collaborative effort or a stand-
    alone program.

        Alabama: Body Quest:

        The child obesity program ``Body Quest'' was first implemented in
    1999, and since then has become a 15 week, multi-level program aimed at
    reducing childhood obesity in third-graders. In FY 2015, the initiative
    was implemented with a treatment and control group of students and
    their parents. The treatment or intervention included social marketing,
    community coalitions, and parent and child engagement, among other
    things. The curriculum included materials and iPad applications with
    anime-style cartoon characters representing different healthy habits to
    help make the curriculum relatable to children. By the end of the 15
    week period, treatment students reported eating more fruits and
    vegetables offered through the School Lunch Program compared to the
    control group. Parents of treatment group children were given easy to
    make, inexpensive recipes that incorporated more vegetables, and were
    given information and tips through a texting initiative. A post-survey
    texting poll found that 100% of parents who received the texts enjoyed
    them, and as a result treatment parents found that their third-graders
    ate an increased amount of vegetables per day compared to the control
    group.
        SNAP-Ed is an accountable program. SNAP-Ed implementing agencies
    have regularly scheduled state management evaluations and audits and
    federally scheduled management evaluations and audits every 2 years.
    LGU SNAP-Ed distribution of funds for programming is focused in the
    community with 84% of all funding going to educational delivery staff,
    7% devoted to administration and budget, 6% to program leadership and
    accountability and 3% curriculum development and support staff.
        In 2010, SNAP-Ed that was delivered through LGU Extension used
    fewer Federal dollars per participant than that delivered through other
    providers. This was an average, and was not necessarily the case for
    specific providers. There are often important aspects of SNAP-Ed
    delivery that underlie these figures, such as the challenging nature,
    and associated higher costs, of reaching particular constituencies with
    nutrition education. The table below shows SNAP-Ed delivery metrics for
    LGU Extension providers and the overall national average cost per
    participant. Since 2010 was the last year this number was officially
    calculated, the SNAP-Ed focus has expanded from mainly direct education
    to direct education plus multi-level interventions. Therefore a new
    analysis will have to be undertaken to update the calculation based on
    these changes.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SNAP-Ed cost and reach--
       Extension and other
      providers nationally,        LGU Extension              Overall
              2010
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No. of participants       4.5 million (74%)             6.0 million
    Federal funding level     $161 million (43%)           $375 million
     Federal cost per            $36 per person         $63 per person
           participant
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Sexton, J. FY 2010: A retrospective review (Note: The data in
      this table are from 2010.
    The funding formula for SNAP-Ed was modified immediately after 2010 data
      were gathered, and a current analysis may produce different figures.)

        Through sound government accounting practices of the LGUs, SNAP-ED
    is a well-managed, reviewed, audited and impactful program.
    Partnerships With Other Federal Nutrition Programs
        Working with other Federal nutrition programs SNAP-Ed reinforces
    and enhances opportunities for success.

        Florida: Alachua County Food Hub:

        The Alachua County Food Hub, also known locally as the ``Farm to
    School to Work Hub,'' has become a teaching facility for students, a
    meeting space for school garden champions wanting to connect their
    gardens to the lunchroom, a place for kitchen managers learning to use
    farm fresh produce, and a learning opportunity for districts around the
    state desiring to incorporate more fresh produce into school menus for
    children most in need. The hub is a true representation of collective
    impact, which includes a partnership between the Family Nutrition
    Program (Florida SNAP-Ed), the Alachua County School Board, the Growing
    Educational Training program, and numerous community organizations.
    Students were instrumental in helping to develop the food hub where
    they received and aggregated produce from local farmers and learned to
    weigh, measure, package and distribute to district schools. Nineteen
    SNAP-Ed-eligible schools received produce from local farms as well as
    from onsite gardens and greenhouses through the food hub. Nearly 13,000
    pounds of produce from local farms and the hub gardens were processed
    through the food hub. Additional outcomes and impacts of the program
    include student participation in gardening classes; training in food
    packing, food safety procedures; more than 150 heads of lettuce
    produced for the school lunch program; students cared for over 3,000
    plants for school gardens; five local farms provided more than 9,000
    pounds of produce for 15 SNAP-Ed eligible schools; and students
    assisted in developing standard operating procedures for the food hub
    based on industry standards.

        Oregon: Food Hero and Smarter Lunchrooms:

        Oregon State University SNAP-Ed program has a partnership with the
    Oregon State Department of Education--ODE (Child Nutrition Programs,
    School Food Service, and the broader school environment) includes three
    training efforts that include Oregon SNAP-Ed faculty and staff.

       Five regional culinary workshops designed for Food Service
            managers and food preparation cooks in schools are scheduled
            for fall of 2016. SNAP-Ed Food Hero recipes will be
            highlighted, and Oregon SNAP-Ed faculty/staff can attend.

       Smarter Lunchroom: There will be ten regional trainings over
            18 months, starting in the Fall. Four will focus on the
            National School Lunch Program; four on the Child and Adult Care
            Food Program; and two on SFSP sites. These are train the
            trainer workshops for Oregon SNAP-Ed faculty/staff members and
            Food Service staff.

       Cycle menu training. There will be four locations for these
            regional trainings for school food service employees, and SNAP-
            Ed faculty can attend.

        Incorporation of SNAP-Ed Food Hero recipes into Child Nutrition
    Programs: ODE Child Nutrition Program is continuing to test, quantify,
    and credit SNAP-Ed Food Hero recipes for use in school lunch programs,
    CACFP sites, and summer feeding sites. These recipes are quantified at
    approximately 12, 24, 50 and 100 serving sizes. By the end of 2017, 72
    recipes will be completed and listed on the SNAP-Ed Food Hero website.
    These recipes are part of a larger effort that includes ODE, DHS,
    Oregon Department of Agriculture, and Oregon SNAP-Ed. Large posters of
    showcased fruits and vegetables align with the quantity recipes as part
    of Food Hero and Oregon Harvest for Schools.
    SNAP-Ed Future
        The FY 2017 SNAP-Ed Federal Guidance requires states to adopt a new
    National SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework which includes short, medium and
    long term outcomes and indicators. This Evaluation Framework is
    accompanied by an interpretive guide to help implementing agencies
    understand how to best utilize and report on outcomes and indicators.
    This will move the nationwide program into an even higher level of
    standardized outcomes and accountability and help stakeholders see the
    impact of ongoing activities. In addition, implementing agencies are
    guided by a national toolkit of best practices. Development of these
    new evidence based tools guides practitioners to select an intervention
    with the greatest chance of success for their community and provides
    researchers with tools to document evidenced based outcomes for multi-
    level community based interventions. The goal is to impact SNAP
    recipients where they live, learn, work, play and pray. As we
    collaborate, cooperate and network with partners the force multiplier
    will create much needed change to our future health outcomes with SNAP-
    Ed as one of the most innovative programs implemented at a community
    level.
        Thanks to Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and all of the
    Committee Members for your acceptance and careful review of this
    testimony.
    Bibliography
        Cooperative Extension's National Framework for Health and Wellness,
    March 2014. Accessed June 28, 2016 from http://www.aplu.org/members/
    commissions/food-environment-and-renewable-resources/.
        Landers, P. The Food Stamp Program: History, Nutrition Education
    and Impact. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2007: 107: 1945-1951.
        Sexton, J. (2013) ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
    Education through Land-Grant University System for FY 2010: A
    Retrospective Review.''
        Blitstein, J., Cates, S., Hersey, J., Montgomery, D. Adding Social
    Marketing Campaign to a School-Based Nutrition Education Program
    Improves Children's Dietary Intake: A Quasi Experimental Study. J. Am.
    Diet. Assoc. 2016; 1: 1-10.
        Heim, S., Stang, J., Ireland, M., A Garden Pilot Project Enhances
    Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in Children. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2009;
    109: 1220-1226.
        Robinson-O'Brien, R. Story, M., Heim, S. Impact of Garden-Based
    Youth Nutrition Intervention Programs: A Review. J. Am. Diet. Assoc.
    2009; 109: 273-280.
        Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Evidence Analysis Library.
    Health Disparities, Food Security (2011). Accessed June 26, 2016 at
    http://www.andeal.org/topic.cfm?menu=3956&cat=4571.
                                     ______

    Supplementary Material Submitted by Susan B. Foerster, M.P.H., Emeritus
          and Founding Member, Association of SNAP Nutrition Education
                                 Administrators
        Thank you for the opportunity to follow-up on questions from the
    June 22 hearing, Evaluating the Outcomes and Effectiveness of SNAP
    Nutrition Education (SNAP-Ed). We appreciate the opportunity to suggest
    how SNAP-Ed could help realize our common vision of more people, living
    in healthier low-income communities, with stronger food and agriculture
    systems.

        How has SNAP nutrition education evolved into what we see today?

        Today's SNAP-Ed results from 3 decades of experience and
    innovation. Congress established the `first generation' that focused on
    direct nutrition education in 1981; ultimately, seven states
    participated. In the mid-1990's USDA reviewed progress and awarded
    planning grants for 22 social marketing nutrition networks to use
    larger-scale approaches, work in partnerships, and qualify for Federal
    Financial Participation (FFP) funds. In that `second generation',
    participation grew to all 50 states and the District of Columbia (1997-
    2010). Passage of the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA)
    created a `third generation' that added the social determinants of
    health and policy, systems and environmental change (PSEs).

        Significant changes in the mission and funding structure of SNAP-Ed
    started several years ago. What services have changed since passage of
    the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act?

        The new Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program in
    the 2010 HHFKA expanded the scope of SNAP-Ed to add physical activity
    and obesity prevention, evidence-based comprehensive community and
    public health approaches, and coordination with the Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention (CDC). It replaced the FFP incentive funding
    with state grants that required no match and were administered by SNAP
    state agencies. Passed mid-recession, SNAP-Ed was flat funded at $400M
    through 2018, and a reallocation formula redistributed funds among the
    states. The flat funding and reallocation took effect in FFY 2012 and
    2014, respectively, and the expanded scope of community and public
    health approaches with policy, systems and environmental supports was
    fully implemented starting in FFY 2015.
        SNAP-Ed today is a responsive program of nutrition education and
    promotion whose practitioners collectively use a wide variety of
    intervention approaches with the different age-, race/ethnic and
    linguistic population groups their programs serve. Similar to
    commercial marketing, SNAP-Ed tries to reach people as many times, in
    as many ways, and in as many places as possible where they make food
    and activity decisions. SNAP-Ed tailors its efforts to people in the
    low-resource locations where food and activity decisions are made.
    Evaluation and revision of materials and interventions is routine.
    SNAP-Ed has strong connections with community groups and institutions
    in low-resource settings and works flexibly with stakeholders as new
    opportunities arise.
        Even without counting its reach through PSE changes, SNAP-Ed
    continues to touch by far the most low-income people in the most places
    and formats of all the USDA nutrition education programs. As shown
    below, the number of people reached by direct education and social
    marketing has held steady, though the number of repeat educational
    contacts has dropped.

       Reported Reach and Contacts of SNAP-Ed Through Education and Social
            Marketing by 144 State Implementing Agencies in FFY 2015
         (Reach of Policy, Systems and Environmental Change Are Not Yet
                                   Available)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Numbers Reported,
           Reach or Contacts                2015           Trend since 2010
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Individuals (B)            5,924,937
    Direct Education Contacts (H)        145,364,559
         Individuals via Social           19,106,290
         Marketing Campaigns (J)
    Number of SIAs reporting social              128
              marketing activity
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: USDA EARS, 2015 Public Use Tables. Letters in parentheses denote
      the column header in the EARS tables.

        Demand for SNAP-Ed has resulted in its being offered in virtually
    any community setting where face-to- face education can be conducted.
    Each year, direct education is delivered in nearly 50,000 low-resource
    community sites.

       Sites in 23 Community Channels Where Direct Education Was Delivered
          Through SNAP-Ed by 144 State Implementing Agencies, FFY 2015
         (Sites of Policy, Systems and Environmental Change Are Not Yet
                                   Available)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Trend                                Trend
        Channel        Sites     since     Channel        Sites       Since
                      Reported    2010                   Reported     2010
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schools              16,826
    Community             2,389
    Churches/Faith        2,167
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: USDA EARS, 2015 Public Use Tables. Letters in parentheses denote
      the column header in the EARS tables.

        Has the change in funding affected where nutrition education and
    promotion are offered?

        There is a clear trend toward offering direct education in
    community settings other than schools and in trying to reach young
    children, children outside of school and adults. While schools are
    still the dominant site for SNAP-Ed, the change from match-generated
    funding to a grant has resulted in direct education being offered in
    other community sites: day care, community centers, emergency food
    systems, public housing, farmers' markets, faith-based organizations,
    community health centers, food stores, and worksites. In a very natural
    way, SNAP-Ed staff are able to extend the relationships they've built
    through direct education and social marketing to assist partners by
    adding changes in PSEs that will support positive change on a larger-
    scale and with longer-lasting impact. Policies are written
    organizational decisions, systems changes mean shift in services, and
    environmental supports involve changes in the visual, `built', social,
    economic, communications, and normative environments. PSEs are designed
    to make healthy behaviors easier with a larger-scale and longer-lasting
    impact.

        How does SNAP-Ed typically coordinate to avoid duplication of
    efforts?

        At the state level, each State Implementing Agency (SIA) must
    provide an annual plan and budget. In the 21 states that have two or
    more SIAs, one composite plan with clear role delineation, outcomes and
    budget for each SIA must be reviewed and approved prior to work
    commencing. Some states have moved to a competitive RFP process to
    select SIAs. While SIAs collaborate in planning and implementation, it
    is the decision of the SNAP State Agency to fund complementary rather
    than duplicative programs.
        SNAP-Ed depends on partnerships. In the social marketing
    `generation' of SNAP-Ed, statewide networks of organizational leaders
    from the public, nonprofit, foundation and business sectors were
    formed. Today, State Nutrition Action Councils composed of the major
    USDA categorical programs--SNAP, Child Nutrition, EFNEP and WIC--are
    being re-established. They are asked to plan ways to join efforts that
    gain synergies to make the most of their respective efforts. SNAP-Ed
    has strict guidelines to prevent its supplanting the mandates of sister
    programs.
        Eliminating disparities in food access, healthy eating, active
    living, and obesity is a national concern. SNAP-Ed works with partners
    who have similar aims. These include programs of the U.S. Department of
    Health and Human Services, such as CDC and Maternal, Child and
    Adolescent Health; USDA, such as the Food Insecurity and Nutrition
    Incentive (FINI) awardees, farmers' market initiatives, Community-
    Supported Agriculture (CSA), and Farm to Anywhere efforts; service
    organizations; foundations; health plans; and state/local governments.
        All organizations have limited resources. Increasingly,
    stakeholders try to take a collective impact approach. SNAP-Ed is
    recognized as consistent and long-term, with a solid infrastructure, so
    it often is instrumental behind the scenes in setting a common agenda,
    establishing outcomes, keeping up communications, and helping to
    coordinate activities. The goal is to leverage dollars for impact
    beyond what any stakeholder could accomplish alone.

        To what extent does SNAP-Ed work with industry? To what degree is
    industry involved with education? What more could be done?

        SNAP is a food shopping assistance program. Of 22 SNAP-Ed states
    that replied to a quick poll, all but one are now working with retail
    partners or plan to do so in the coming year. These include chain and
    independent supermarkets, corner, small, rural, and C-stores, farmers'
    markets, and CSAs. Among national and regional chains, states reported
    working with SNAP-Ed eligible stores in companies such as Bashas,
    Festival Foods, Fred Meyer, Food 4 Less, Giant, Grocery Outlet, HyVee,
    Kroger, Kwik Trip, Meijers, Price Chopper, Safeway, Save-A-Lot, Shop n
    Save, Spartan Nash, Stop and Shop, and Weis Markets. The number of
    SNAP-Ed-eligible independent, small and C-stores is too numerous to
    count, as is the number of farmers' markets.
        SNAP-Ed activities include direct education, food demonstrations,
    store tours; in-store support, like signage, print recipes and
    educational information; and larger-scale community collaborations with
    grocer and grower associations, nonprofits like Cooking MattersTM,
    Double-Up Food Bucks, The Food Trust, and Wholesome Wave. Several
    states are planning to work with the Partnership for a Healthier
    America's FNVTM campaign that encourages millennials to eat more fruits
    and vegetables, and one is joining efforts with Eat Brighter!TM a
    partnership of the Produce Marketing Association, fruit and veggie
    companies, and Sesame Street.
        Some states work with the separately funded FINI (Food Insecurity
    and Nutrition Incentive) projects in their state, and others intend to
    respond to future competitions. Some states partner with grocer,
    grower, and farmers' market manager associations, especially around
    increasing EBT redemption. Two states are partnering to create a food
    hub that can help aggregate gleaned food that would otherwise be
    discarded. Several several mentioned working to improve supply chains
    for school food programs.
        SNAP-Ed works easily with eligible smaller food stores and
    independent chains. However, over 80 percent of SNAP dollars are spent
    in supermarkets, and there are barriers to working with national and
    regional chains that could help shift SNAP buying practices on a larger
    scale: SNAP-Ed targeting rules allow partnerships only with stores in
    eligible low-income Census tracts, usually with few supermarkets, or
    with supermarkets that redeem more than $50,000 in SNAP benefits
    monthly, which is confidential information. From a chain stores'
    perspective, corporate approval is usually required to allow
    partnerships with any local initiatives, and some companies are
    reluctant to target low-income shoppers. It would be helpful if
    currently-proprietary information about SNAP redemptions and sales of
    healthy foods were made available to states. This information would
    allow SNAP-Ed to approach chains and make the business case for
    cooperative campaigns benefitting SNAP, WIC and other low-income
    customers.

        With all the positive changes that the food industry has made, such
    as recipe-ready fruits and vegetables, healthier fast foods, whole
    grain breads, and healthier lines of processed foods, what more could
    industry do to help low-income customers?

        Healthy convenience foods are boon to busy families, but they tend
    to be too expensive for families who have so little income that they
    need SNAP. Manufacturers and grocers could be given the opportunity to
    offer these and other healthy foods, such as fruits and vegetables in
    season, at a discounted price to SNAP shoppers. Similarly, without a
    waiver, retailers may not voluntarily offer `double up' or `bonus
    value' for fruits and vegetables purchased with SNAP dollars. As
    research programs like HIP (Healthy Incentive Program) and FINI are
    showing, incentive pricing helps narrow the affordability gap for low-
    income shoppers and raise dietary quality. The Federal non-
    discrimination policy that prevents retailers from voluntarily offering
    price incentives for healthy foods like targeted fruits and vegetables
    to their SNAP customers could be updated.
        There is nothing to prevent a company from shifting prices so that
    low-nutrient foods are priced higher to offset the cost of healthier
    foods. This has been done successfully in commercial food service
    venues, like worksite cafeterias and vending machines. Price shifts are
    likely to be especially effective with price-sensitive groups such as
    youth and low-wage workers and when accompanied by nutrition education
    and promotion.
        Although final rules are in place, menu labeling and the improved
    Nutrition Facts labels that show calories and portion sizes more
    clearly will not become effective until late 2017 and 2018
    respectively. It would be effective, especially low-income consumers,
    if companies were to introduce the new labels well before the Federal
    deadline.
        While many food companies have developed healthier foods, there has
    been little or no increase in advertising and promotion of the healthy
    items compared to the very high levels of advertising for and promotion
    of less healthy, high-margin foods and beverages. Some studies show
    that marketing and promotions targeted to non-English speakers, to
    minority groups and to children are high and disproportionately for
    less healthy foods and beverages. Changes toward health in advertising,
    promotion and other business practices would help reduce negative
    influences and_especially for children and adults with limited
    education_go far in shaping healthier food norms.

        In addition to problems of access to healthy foods, one of the
    greatest challenges that families using SNAP face is that benefits run
    out before the end of the month. Is nutrition education the only
    solution, or is there more we need to do to improve benefit adequacy?

        EFNEP and SNAP-Ed have proven that education in food resource
    management helps families avoid running out of food money, but there at
    least four other ways that could help.
        First, many families shop once or twice a month for food but still
    run out of food money within 2 or 3 weeks. For families living in food
    deserts and food swamps that, by definition, have limited access to
    supermarkets where food costs are generally lowest, higher stocking
    standards for healthy foods in small stores could increase the
    availability of healthy choices, especially for perishables, between
    trips to the supermarket. SNAP-Ed could be mobilized to help small
    retailers generate consumer demand, introduce in-store changes, and--
    where needed--help develop supply chains for healthier foods. Requiring
    all stores certified by SNAP to stock more and healthier food,
    bolstered by SNAP-Ed assistance when needed, could make a big
    difference in rural and under-served neighborhoods all year long.
        Second, there are many USDA initiatives to help local agriculture
    and small farmers bring healthier food into under-served communities
    through farmers' markets, mobile markets, CSAs (Community-Supported
    Agriculture), FINI projects, farm-to-school/farm-to-fork efforts, the
    Specialty Crop Block grant, and community gardens. These initiatives
    could be expanded.
        Third, the USDA Child Nutrition Programs and SNAP are designed to
    work together as a holistic safety net for children, yet in many areas
    participation in essential programs like school breakfast, summer meals
    and high school lunch programs lags far below the number of children
    whose households need that extra support. Due to concerns about
    supplantation, SNAP-Ed may only provide referral information, not
    actively encourage participation in the nutrition assistance programs.
    USDA could offer performance incentive awards to state agencies for
    working together to reduce their state's food insecurity rates,
    especially among children.
        Last, the SNAP eligibility and benefit levels do not vary with cost
    of living differences among the 48 contiguous states or with regions
    within each state, and the SNAP benefit is based on the household
    income. In a high cost area, a typical family using SNAP is relatively
    poorer and receives a relatively lower amount of SNAP benefit than in a
    low-cost area. SNAP eligibility and benefit levels could be adjusted
    for cost-of-living differences.

        How do SNAP-Ed programs measure success?

        Current reporting focuses on accountability. All state plans must
    include SMART objectives (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant,
    and time-bound) aligned with the state's needs assessments, strategies
    and priorities. State program and local grantees may follow business-
    type processes to measure an intervention's success at each step:
    formative research and intervention design, pilot testing and revision,
    program roll-out, and periodic upgrades in line with ongoing
    evaluations. All states report their formative, process and outcome
    evaluations, including any publications, annually. States report their
    success in delivering educational and social marketing activities to
    USDA in a national system, EARS (Education and Administrative Reporting
    System) each year.
        However, the true outcomes sought by SNAP-Ed--better informed
    people, more supportive organizations, stronger community
    infrastructures and healthier low-income populations--are very
    difficult to measure, they change very slowly, and most successes will
    be attributable to SNAP-Ed in partnership with others. Change is not
    linear, and outcomes are measured in multi-year increments. It is
    believed that once a `tipping point' is reached, the pace accelerates,
    but `tipping points' will be different among states. There were no
    reporting systems or data sets anywhere that could quantify the wide
    range of outcomes that lead to healthy eating, active living, food
    security and obesity prevention, much less compile annual statistics
    across state lines. The new SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework is trying to
    overcome these realities and, in so doing, break important new ground
    in measuring program success.

        Can you explain what new reporting mechanisms are being put in
    place to track success in SNAP-Ed as a whole?

        The new policy direction from the 2010 HHFKA led to states and USDA
    working together and with other experts on a comprehensive SNAP-Ed
    Evaluation Framework. It zeros in on outcomes in three spheres of
    influence that work together to support permanent healthy behavior. The
    Framework has been operationalized into an Interpretive Guide (IG) that
    was released in early June. The IG lays out metrics that will become
    the foundation for reporting SNAP-Ed outcomes comprehensively and
    compiling them for many local, state and national uses. The metrics
    include accomplishments collected as part of program evaluations as
    well as those drawn from national data bases such as those maintained
    by USDA and CDC.
        In the Framework, measures of success are organized into three
    spheres of influence: For individuals receiving direct education,
    selected behavior changes sustained over at least 6 months is
    considered long-term success. For organizations that partner with SNAP-
    Ed to serve low-income people, the implementation of specific policy,
    systems and environmental changes, with the number of people expected
    to benefit, are counted as long-term success. For multi-sector
    activities that can make a difference on a very large scale, a set of
    policy and practice changes recommended by authoritative sources and
    specific to healthy eating and physical activity in low-resource
    settings has been identified. When low-income specific, multi-sector
    changes occurred due at least in part to SNAP-Ed assistance, that is
    considered a SNAP-Ed success.
        For the 51 Indicators in the Interpretive Guide, there are metrics
    for eight
    short-, 13 medium- and 19 long-term outcomes that together contribute
    to 11 different Population Outcomes. Each Indicator has standardized
    metrics that will allow compilation and aggregation for the program as
    a whole. The next step is to test and fine-tune metrics, then develop
    an automated, interactive reporting system that is practical for local,
    state and national purposes.

        What is being done to assure that SNAP-Ed is based on the best
    practices and science?

        SNAP-Ed has compiled the first-ever repository containing
    interventions focused on low-resource populations and settings. In the
    1990s, SNAP-Ed programs had to develop, test, roll-out and continually
    improve low-income tailored interventions from scratch. While many were
    designed with replication in mind, mechanisms to help disseminate best
    practices were lacking.
        USDA, the National Consortium of Childhood Obesity Research, and
    ASNNA have worked together to produce a single, peer-reviewed public-
    use repository. SNAP-Ed Strategies & Interventions: An Obesity
    Prevention Toolkit for States (2016) will grow as more evidence-based
    interventions become available. Of the nearly 100 entries, \2/3\ were
    developed by SNAP-Ed states.

    Number of Evidence-Based Interventions Cited In the SNAP-Ed Strategies &
         Interventions: An Obesity Prevention Toolkit for States, 2016 *

    Target Behavior:
      Breast-feeding...........................................         11
      Food.....................................................         76
      Physical Activity........................................         39
    Intervention Type:
      Direct Education.........................................         47
      Social Marketing.........................................         28
      PSE......................................................         50
    Low-Resource Setting/Channel:
      Child Care...............................................         22
      School...................................................         36
      Community................................................         35
      Worksite.................................................         10
      Retail...................................................          9
      Health Care..............................................          7

    Editor's note: the formatting of this table has been altered for
      publishing. The data contained therein has not been altered.

        The Toolkit is intended to help states find or adapt on proven-
    effective interventions that they can mix and match to build
    comprehensive programs tailored to their state's priorities. It links
    electronically with websites maintained by the originating programs so
    users can learn from each other. The Toolkit is will soon be available
    in an interactive format. It is expected that new interventions
    tailored to different SNAP-Ed population segments, dietary and physical
    activity behaviors, types of PSE changes, and community channels will
    be added each year. The Toolkit is expected to help states meet HHFKA
    requirements more efficiently, avoid duplication when developing new
    interventions, increase results, and standardize program outcomes to be
    more easily reported across state lines.

        Are there specific results that you can point to?

        In addition to the peer-reviewed interventions in the Toolkit,
    SNAP-Ed practitioners participate in scientific meetings to present
    their work to peers and obtain critical feedback. These not only share
    success, but they serve to continually improve the practice of
    nutrition education and promotion. There is as yet no single repository
    for peer-reviewed papers showing the results of SNAP-Ed interventions,
    but it is believed that several hundred are in print. Published results
    tend to be positive for food resource management, fruit and vegetable
    consumption, and physical activity. Lowering obesity rates in
    population groups requires preventing obesity before it happens, and
    early results with children are positive. The challenge will be to take
    local and state successes to-scale with entire populations and in
    larger geographic areas.

        Are there any other approaches to measuring success that could be
    considered?

        Attention is beginning to shift toward examining the cost-
    effectiveness of comprehensive strategies to reduce obesity. In 2014 a
    microsimulation found that afterschool physical activity programs would
    reduce childhood obesity more than the other two interventions it
    analyzed (Kristensen, et al.). All three of the policies in that
    simulation would have greater impact on black and Latino children than
    on whites. In 2015 a cost-effectiveness projection concluded that three
    of the seven policies would each prevent between 129,000-576,000 cases
    of childhood obesity, saving more in health care costs than the cost to
    implement (Gortmaker, et al.). Also in 2015, a systematic review of
    economic analyses found that, of 27 different interventions, the vast
    majority reported beneficial economic outcomes (McKinnon, et al.). The
    studies focused on the community and the built environment, nutrition-
    related changes, the school environment, and social marketing and media
    interventions. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation just reported signs
    of progress reducing childhood obesity in 20 states; it showcased
    stories and photos from 13 more localities that took comprehensive
    approaches that led to significant declines in childhood obesity.

        Since SNAP-Ed uses comprehensive, multi-sector approaches and
    conducts similar programs to those in the four major studies above, it
    is logical to assume that more in-depth evaluation will document
    similar positive changes on a large scale.

        Rates of obesity vary across the country. Are SNAP-Ed grants
    targeted to states with higher rates of obesity?

        No. The new reallocation formula is based in part on SNAP rates,
    not obesity. However, to the degree that SNAP participation tracks with
    poverty and food insecurity which are drivers of obesity, the HHFKA
    formula will help. In the chart below, of the 16 states and District of
    Columbia that fall in any of the four `top 10' categories for obesity,
    SNAP-Ed funding through the reallocation process will increase for 11.
    For five states, it will more than double.
        It is important to know that, except in the food insecurity and
    PedNSS (Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance Survey) columns, the data
    below are for the general population since rates for low-income groups
    are not readily available. With the prevalence of risks greater in low-
    income population segments, state rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes
    are no doubt significantly higher for SNAP-Ed groups than those shown
    below.

        How does the reallocation process work? How will SNAP-Ed grants be
    impacted?

        By 2018, SNAP-Ed will fund states 50% based on their 2009 funding
    and 50% based on the state's most recent percentage of the national
    SNAP participation. The Congressional reallocation formula uses each
    state's FFY 2009 SNAP-Ed Federal Financial Participation as the base,
    then annually from 2014-2018 adjusts by 10% increments using each
    state's prior-year proportion of the national SNAP population.
        As shown below, for the 11 states and District of Columbia with a
    `top 10' rank but where grants are projected to increase by 10% or
    less, funding will not keep pace with the projected cost of living. Not
    shown are the ten other states without a `top 10' designation but with
    10% growth expected. These include: ME, MI, MN, NE, NM, NH,
    NM, PA, WA and WI. By 2018, grants for 20 states and the District of
    Columbia be either less than in 2009 or fail to keep up with the
    Consumer Price Index.

        Top 10 States for Prevalence of Food Insecurity, Physical Inactivity, Obesity and Diabetes With Estimated Change in SNAP-Ed Funding Due to HHFKA
                                                                     Reallocation, 2014-2018
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      State                                                                             Child Obesity                          Type 2
    with Any  Food  Insecurity      Physical        Adult Obesity    Obesity in High     Rank, 10-17    Obese Low-Income      Diabetes,      Change in SNAP-
     Top 10   Rank,A 2012-2014     Inactivity     Rank,B  2014 (%)   School Students    years,D  2011    2-4 Year Olds,    Adults, Rank,B     Ed Funding,F
      Rank                      Rank,B  2014 (%)                    Rank,C  2015 (%)         (%)        Rank,E  2011 (%)      2014 (%)       FFY14-18 (est.)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mississi         81 (22.0)          1 (31.6)          3 (35.5)          1 (18.9)         1 (21.7)0                          83 (13.0)0               34%
     ppi
    Arkansas         82 (19.9)          2 (30.7)          1 (35.9)          4 (18.0)         6 (20.0)0                          85 (12.7)0               56%
    Louisian         83 (17.6)          3 (29.5)         4 (34.9)0               N/A        84 (21.1)0               N/A                                 87%
     a
    Kentucky         84 (17.5)         6 (28.2)0                           83 (18.5)          8 (19.7)          6 (15.5)         6 (12.5)0               ^5%
    Texas            85 (17.2)         7 (27.6)0                                 N/A       810 (19.1)0               N/A                                141%
    Ohio            86 (16.9)0                          88 (32.6)0               N/A                                            89 (11.7)0              119%
    Alabama         87 (16.8)0                          85 (33.5)0                                                               4 (12.9)0               28%
    Missouri        87 (16.8)0                                                                                                                           ^5%
    North           89 (16.7)0                                                                                87 (15.4)0                                222%
     Carolin
     a
    Oklahoma        810 (16.5)          5 (28.3)          6 (33.0)         6 (17.3)0                                 N/A        87 (12.0)0                3%
    Tennesse                          89 (26.8)0                           82 (18.6)         5 (20.5)0                          82 (13.0)0              140%
     e
    West                               84 (28.7)          2 (35.7)         5 (18.0)0                                            81 (14.1)0                6%
     Virgini
     a
    Indiana                           810 (26.1)         7 (32.7)0                                                                                       18%
    North                                               89 (32.2)0                                                                                        1%
     Dakota
    South                                               810 (32.2)          8 (16.3)         2 (21.5)0               N/A        87 (12.0)0              419%
     Carolin
     a
    D.C.                                                                         N/A        83 (21.4)0                                                   ^9%
    Arizona                                                                                 87 (20.0)0                                                  ^13%
    Illinois                                                                                89 (19.3)0                                                   32%
    Georgia                                                                      N/A                                           810 (11.6)0              222%
    Californ                                                                                                   81 (16.8)        21 (10.3)0              ^23%
     ia
    New                                                                          N/A                          82 (16.6)0                                 10%
     Jersey
    Rhode                                                                                                     82 (16.6)0                                  2%
     Island
    Massachu                                                                                                  84 (16.4)0                                 50%
     setts
    Connecti                                                                                                  85 (15.8)0                                  1%
     cut
    Maryland                                                                                                  88 (15.3)0                                 59%
    South                                                                                                     89 (15.2)0                                 33%
     Dakota
    Oregon                                                                       N/A                         810 (14.8)0                                  5%
    Delaware                                                             810 (15.8)0                                 N/A                                 61%
    5Lowest           DE (8.4)         CO (16.4)         CO (21.3)         MT (10.3)          OR (9.9)          HI (9.2)         UT (7.1)0               N/A
     Rate
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A--USDA, ERS B--CDC, BRFSS C--CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey (n=37 states). Other state-specific surveys may be available. D--CDC, NHANES for 10 to 17
      year old children. E--CDC, Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance Survey (n=41 states). System has been discontinued. F--USDA, FNS. This percent reflects
      the expected 5 year shift in SNAP-Ed grants due to the 10 year cap of $400M (2009).

        What can the improvements that SNAP-Ed focuses on mean for health
    care costs?
        Lowering health care costs is complicated because so many factors
    are in play. However, being healthy, by definition, will help reduce or
    delay the need for expensive services. Poor diet, physical inactivity
    and obesity have long been known as the leading preventable causes of
    death (JAMA, 1993). Experts urge a collective change from an
    `obesogenic environment' toward `a culture of health' and, for less-
    advantaged groups, eliminating disparities by focusing on social
    determinants of health. That said, there is little progress toward
    healthy eating practices, obesity rates are up in most groups, and
    health care costs continue to rise.
        The health care cost trajectory could be changed through
    prevention. The California Department of Public Health conducted an
    analysis that estimated the state's 10 year cost of physical
    inactivity, obesity and overweight at nearly $220B in medical care,
    workers' compensation and lost productivity (Year 2000 dollars). The
    analysis projected that a ten percent increase in the number of adults
    who were leaner and more active could avoid about $13B in health care
    costs_nearly six percent less than the expected 10 year growth.
        Nationally, the economic costs of food insecurity, physical
    inactivity, obesity and diet-related diseases are high, as shown below,
    and many are rising. Among low-income populations where disease onset
    occurs at younger ages and rates of risk factors are higher, the
    economic benefits of prevention may be greater and occur sooner than in
    the general population.

      Cost of Diet-Related-Diseases and Problems that SNAP and SNAP-Ed Help
             Reduce With Dollars Allocated to SNAP and SNAP-Ed, 2016
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Cost per Year
          Cost Center              (rounded)            Source, Comments
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Food Insecurity              $160,000,000,000  Bread for the World
                                                    Institute, 2016
    Obesity                      $256,000,000,000  Chenoweth & Leutzinger,
                                                    2006
    Physical Inactivity          $251,000,000,000  Chenoweth & Leutzinger,
                                                    2006
    Type 2 Diabetes              $245,000,000,000  Centers for Disease
                                                    Control and Prevention,
                                                    2014
    Cancer                       $216,000,000,000  Centers for Disease
                                                    Control and Prevention,
                                                    2015
    Coronary Heart Disease       $204,000,000,000  American Heart
                                                    Association, 2015
    High Blood Pressure           $46,000,000,000  American Heart
                                                    Association, 2015
    Stroke                        $36,000,000,000  American Heart
                                                    Association, 2015
    Osteoporosis                  $19,000,000,000  National Osteoporosis
                                                    Foundation, 2014
                            ----------------------
      Total                                   N/A  Differences in methods
                                                    and timeframes preclude
                                                    totaling these costs.
                            ----------------------
    SNAP-Related Investment
     in Prevention
      SNAP Food Benefits          $69,000,000,000  USDA, 2016
      SNAP-Ed                        $408,000,000  USDA, 2016
                            ======================
        Total                     $69,408,000,000  Does not include other
                                                    economic benefits to
                                                    individuals and
                                                    communities.\1\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conclusion
        SNAP, the centerpiece program in the nation's nutrition safety net,
    already provides well documented, significant economic returns and
    health benefits.\1\ SNAP-Ed, its nutrition arm, is increasingly well
    positioned to multiply those benefits and go further toward achieving
    the larger mission_food security, good nutrition and better health_for
    low-income Americans, less-resourced communities, and the nation's food
    and agriculture systems.
        Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important
    process. Please plan to visit SNAP-Ed projects back home to see the
    results for yourself.
    [Endnote]
        \1\ SNAP generates significant increases in economic activity, jobs
    and self-employment, and agricultural production throughout the entire
    food system, from farm to table (ERS, 2015). Each SNAP dollar nearly
    doubles its value in local economic activity (ERS, 2015). Moody's
    concluded that the fastest way to infuse an ailing economy is through
    SNAP because it is quickly spent to generate consumer demand and
    contribute to wages at every point in the food chain (FRAC, 2015).
        SNAP alone has health benefits. SNAP participation early in life is
    associated with lower rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome years
    later, and it improves educational attainment and economic self-
    sufficiency, both of which are positively associated with better health
    (Council of Economic Advisors). SNAP participation resulted in
    decreased growth of inpatient costs for Medicaid patients in Boston
    (Sonik, et al., 2015).
        Changes in benefits could help. A small increase in benefits was
    projected to boost spending on food and improve dietary quality (Center
    for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2016). A 30% incentive boosted fruit
    and vegetable intake to achieve an unprecedented 5 point increase in
    the Healthy Eating Index and closed 20% of the gap compared to national
    recommendations (Olsho, et al, 2016).
                                     ______

           Submitted Statement by Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
    Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Supports SNAP Nutrition Education
        American diets fall short of recommendations for good health and
    contribute to excess rates of preventable chronic diseases (USDA & U.S.
    DHHS, 2015). Obesity rates are high and occur at younger ages in low-
    income and some minority groups, as do other serious problems like Type
    2 diabetes, heart disease and hypertension (USDA & U.S. DHHS, 2015).
        Nutrition education is critical to good health and the development
    of lifelong healthy behaviors. Effective and targeted nutrition
    education across the life cycle can have an empowering and positive
    impact on the health and well-being of Americans.
        To address food insecurity in low-resource populations the Academy
    recommends:

              ``. . . interventions, including adequate funding for and
            increased utilization of food and nutrition assistance
            programs, inclusion of food and nutrition education in such
            programs and innovative programs to promote and support
            individual and household economic self-sufficiency.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Position of the American Dietetic Association: Food Insecurity
    in the United States. Journal of the American Dietetic Assoc. 2010;
    110: 1368-1377.

        SNAP Nutrition Education, or SNAP-Ed, is an innovative nutrition
    education program that is meeting the unique needs of low-income
    communities nationwide. SNAP-Ed provides targeted effective nutrition
    education that empowers families to make lasting behavior change and
    builds skills to manage limited resources towards economic self-
    sufficiency.
    History of SNAP-Ed
        As early as 1981 and building over time, Congress and the USDA have
    recognized the critical role of government supported nutrition
    education to helping the most nutritionally vulnerable populations make
    healthy food choices.
        In the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, the House and Senate
    Agriculture Committees initiated efforts to expand the reach of
    nutrition education to food stamp recipients (SEC. 1322). Specifically,
    ``to encourage the purchase of nutritious foods, the Secretary is
    authorized to extend food and nutrition education to reach food stamp
    program participants, using the methods and techniques developed in the
    expanded food and nutrition education and other programs.'' Over the
    next few years and up to the rewrite of the farm bill, USDA began to
    employ more innovative approaches to reach broader low low-income
    audiences beyond the ``one-on-one'' approach used in the successful
    Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program.
        In the Food Security Act of 1985, Title XVII, Subtitle A, Congress
    authorized USDA to make funds available to State Cooperative Extension
    Services to expand their food, nutrition and consumer services for low-
    income households. The House Agriculture Committee ``wishes to ensure,
    to the extent possible, that low-income households have access to
    programs enabling them to maximize their food dollars and improve their
    diets,'' according to report language for this 1985 Act. ``The primary
    purposes of the program are to (1) increase the ability of low-income
    persons to manage their food budgets, (2) advance the ability of these
    persons to buy food that satisfies nutritional needs and promotes good
    health and (3) improve the food preparation, storage, safety,
    preservation and sanitation practices of low-income people.'' The
    Committee urges program funding to be spent on education activities and
    services rather than development of teaching materials and thus to be
    coordinated with the Food and Nutrition Service nutrition education
    efforts. The Committee report stated that ``the targeting of this
    nutrition education program on the low-income population is not based
    on the belief that these persons are poorer shoppers or know less about
    good nutrition than other Americans. This program is targeted on low-
    income persons because of their special needs to stretch limited food
    dollars and to assure that the public's tax dollars devoted to food
    assistance programs are spent in the most efficient way possible.''
        Over the past 30 years, the food stamp nutrition education program,
    now titled the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education has
    achieved the goals of the program initiators in the House Agriculture
    Committee. From a plethora of innovative education methods, millions of
    more low-income individuals have gained competence in managing their
    food budgets, shopping for and preparing healthful food and improving
    their overall health.
    Innovative Nutrition Education Programming
        Nutrition education is not is merely handing out brochures,
    lectures or memorizing nutrients.
        Nutrition education is engaging, fun and experiential. It is about
    food: tasty, delicious food that is also healthful.
        Effective education strategies in combination and coordination with
    nutrition assistance programs will help ensure the Federal investment
    in these programs is optimized. Nutrition education ensures that
    families have knowledge and skills and are empowered to make healthy
    choices, whether purchasing food in the grocery store, corner store or
    restaurants or preparing food at home. For example a 2013 Deloitte
    study found that smart grocery shopping and healthful cooking can save
    a family approximately $46,000 per adult family member in lifetime
    health care costs and wages lost to sick days. Nutrition education can
    help build those types of food skills.
    SNAP-Ed Evolves
        State SNAP-Ed programs were designed to operate at all levels:
    neighborhoods, cities, counties, regions and statewide. SNAP-Ed
    promotes healthy behaviors and helps create conditions in which the
    healthy choice is the easy choice. Empowering families with the skills
    and promoting healthy surroundings through systems supports foster
    lifelong healthy food and physical activity choices. Early adoption of
    healthy habits, resource management skills, coupled with systems
    approaches that support those habits are key to reducing health care
    costs related to chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes and heart
    disease. SNAP-Ed evaluated programs show:

       Increases in fruit and vegetable consumption and physical
            activity by participating low-income children and adults
            (Johnson, et al., 2013; Sexton & Chipman, 2013).

       Increases in dietary intake of fiber, calcium, iron and
            other key nutrients needed for a healthier diet (Johnson, et
            al., 2013; Sexton & Chipman).

       Unprecedented gains in statewide fruit and vegetable
            consumption by low-income residents using social marketing
            nutrition networks (Foerster & Gregson, 2011).

       Decreases in new cases of overweight among elementary
            children in a large urban school district (Foster, et al.,
            2008).

       Increases in food resource management skills and decreased
            incidence of food shortage before the end of the month (Kaiser,
            et al., 2015).

       Stronger methods and best practices for nutrition education
            (Lovett, Sherman, & Barno).

        While much is happening now, more can be done to ensure that
    nutrition assistance programs are leveraged more to help improve the
    health and well-being of Americans--ultimately resulting in health care
    savings.
    Evidenced-Based Evaluation of Nutrition Education Programing
        Over its history, SNAP-Ed has embraced the mission of helping
    achieve the nation's goals for food security, healthful eating,
    physical activity and obesity prevention. States designed and tested
    many new approaches, shared what was learned and saw were significant
    results. From the start, we knew we needed to capture all those results
    to characterize the scale of SNAP-Ed progress among states and across
    the country. Many states have developed and conducted evaluation of the
    program for many years.
        The recently released report from the National Commission on Hunger
    noted the importance of SNAP-Ed and highlighted the ``opportunity to
    standardize data collection and evaluation across programs to assess
    the effectiveness of SNAP-Ed on improving health and hunger outcomes.''
    In June 2016, building on the 30 year history of innovative state
    evaluations, a team with representation from the USDA, CDC and the
    National Collaborative on Child Obesity Research released the SNAP-Ed
    Evaluation Framework and Interpretative Guide.
        This evaluation framework is designed as a science-driven roadmap
    to show how collective efforts across the country could lead to
    population results. It is designed to help SNAP-Ed implementing
    agencies capture the more distal and permanent benefits to society that
    expert bodies say are needed and that this kind of work can generate.
        The Interpretative Guide provides the ``how'' to drive toward big
    results without losing the targeting of SNAP-Ed programming tailor to a
    community's needs. It operationalizes the Framework's 51 Indicators,
    each of which has specific metrics, to help programs quantify and then
    aggregate SNAP-Ed outcomes over time. Those metrics will allow us to
    capture specific, important benefits to individuals, to systems,
    organizations and businesses and to entire low-resource communities at
    the local, regional and statewide levels. The synergy of this work--
    especially in partnerships with other committed stakeholders--is how we
    believe population-wide results are being achieved and can be
    quantified.
    Conclusions
        The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics supports and emphasizes the
    necessity of pairing nutrition assistance programs with strong and
    comprehensive nutrition education programs. SNAP-Ed continues to
    provide innovative and effective nutrition education that empower
    families to make lasting healthy choices. The SNAP-Ed Evaluation
    Framework will help aggregate data that will help policy makers better
    understand the collective impact of SNAP-Ed interventions.
                                     ______

      Submitted Statement by Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Education &
                                     Policy
    Statement in Support of SNAP Education
        The Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Education & Policy in the
    Program in Nutrition, Teachers College Columbia University (the Tisch
    Food Center) is pleased to comment on the critical importance of the
    Federal SNAP Education program. The Tisch Food Center cultivates
    research about connections between a just, sustainable food system and
    healthy eating, and translates it into recommendations and resources
    for educators, policy makers, and community advocates. The Program in
    Nutrition at Teachers College is the oldest university based nutrition
    program in the country, and founded the field of nutrition education.
        The need for high-quality nutrition education is more critical than
    ever. Even when we know what to eat, it's hard, and most American diets
    are falling short of national nutrition recommendations.\2\ This has
    resulted in high rates of obesity and other preventable chronic
    diseases, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and
    hypertension.\2\
        The Federal Government makes a significant investment in access to
    healthy food for all Americans through the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP). This investment can be maximized when
    healthy food access is paired with nutrition education, through SNAP
    Education (SNAP-Ed). This offers the best opportunity for children and
    families to be responsible and informed about their food--synonymous
    with providing a fishing rod along with guidance and hands-on learning
    experiences to catch lots of fish.
        Nutrition education is a cost-effective obesity prevention
    strategy,\3\ yet the current Federal investment in SNAP-Ed is much less
    than the cost of obesity, $408 million vs. $147 billion.\4\ SNAP-Ed is
    an effective program, making significant improvements in the diets of
    participants. Evidence shows that SNAP-Ed participants ate more fruits
    and vegetables, were more physically active,\5\ and were better able to
    manage their food resources.\6\

                 SNAP-Ed in NYC: Stellar Farmers' Market Program
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
         With a SNAP-Ed grant, the NYC Department of Health and
         Mental Hygiene and the New York State Office of Temporary and
         Disability Assistance collaborated to provide free nutrition and
         cooking workshops to SNAP eligible participants at farmers' markets
         in low-income neighborhoods.
         This program, called Stellar Farmers' Market, leverages
         local dollars for SNAP incentives called Health Bucks, allowing
         participants to learn about and purchase local produce.
         Program participants increased fruit and vegetable
         consumption, and reported higher self-efficacy to prepare and
         consume produce.\1\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    References:
        1. Dannefer R., Abrami A., Rapoport R., Sriphanlop P., Sacks R.,
    Johns M. A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a SNAP-Ed Farmers' Market-Based
    Nutrition Education Program. Journal of Nutrition Education and
    Behavior. 2015; 47: 516-525.
        2. U.S. Department of Agriculture & U.S. Department of Health &
    Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020 Eighth
    Edition. 2015.
        3. McKinsey Global Institute. Overcoming Obesity: An Initial
    Economic Analysis. November 2014.
        4. IOM (Institute of Medicine). The current state of obesity
    solutions in the United States: Workshop Summary. Washington, D.C.: The
    National Academies Press; 2014.
        5. Sexton J.S., Chipman H. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program Education through the Land-Grant University System for FY 2010:
    A Retrospective Review. 2013.
        6. Kaiser L., Chaidez V., Ginsburg D.C., et al. Food Resource
    Management Education with SNAP Participation Improves Food Security.
    Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2015; 47(4): 374-378.

              For more information about this brief or the Laurie M. Tisch
            Center for Food, Education & Policy please contact Claire Uno,
            Assistant Executive Director at [Redacted] or [Redacted]
             www.tc.edu/tisch.
                                     ______

                              Submitted Questions
    Response from Kimberlydawn Wisdom, M.D., M.S., Senior Vice President,
            Community Health & Equity and Chief Wellness and Diversity
            Officer, Henry Ford Health System
    Question Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
            from North Carolina
        Question. Dr. Wisdom, can you elaborate on your recommendation to
    modify the Thrifty Food Plan and why it currently does not adequately
    capture the higher costs of healthy foods and the regional variability
    in the cost of living for SNAP participants?
        Answer. The Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) serves as a national standard
    for a nutritious diet at a minimal cost and is used as the basis for
    maximum food stamp allotments. The purchasing power of the TFP has yet
    to be increased by USDA, even though the opportunity presented itself
    in 1983, 1999, and 2006 during market basket revisions. The 2006
    revision of the TFP market baskets reflected changes in dietary
    guidance and incorporated updated information on food composition,
    consumption patterns, and food prices at the same inflation-adjusted
    cost of the previous TFP. TFP requires tradeoffs between the nutrition
    quality and costs of foods available in the United States.
        Critics of the TFP plan cite its impractical lists of food, lack of
    variety, unrealistic assumptions of food availability and
    affordability, underestimation of food waste, and the cost of the time
    needed to prepare foods. The program's most significant weakness is
    that benefits are not adequate to get most families through the entire
    month, let alone to allow them to buy the foods needed for a high,
    quality diet.\1\ Families need to plan ahead and select the most common
    fresh fruits and vegetables such as apples and bananas, iceberg lettuce
    and processed fruits and vegetables (canned, frozen, dried, and juiced
    products) such as canned tomatoes to stay within the TFP budget
    restraints.\2\ No cultural or regional variations are considered.
        The costs of foods greatly vary based on where you live, where you
    shop and what is available in your area. The TFP is based on a national
    average of food prices, but food prices vary widely across the nation,
    as concluded in several USDA reports. As a result, higher food prices
    in many communities--especially urban areas--make it difficult to meet
    TFP guidelines and afford a healthful diet, because SNAP consumers have
    less purchasing power with their program benefits.\1\ To meet the 2005
    Dietary Guidelines market basket would require a low-income family to
    devote 43% to 70% of their food budget to fruits and vegetables
    depending on where they lived and shopped for these items.\4\ This
    would also require families to allocate a much larger share of their
    overall food budget to fruits and vegetables and carefully budget to
    meet these requirements and eliminate the purchase of other processed
    foods.
        Low-income consumers that shop in non-chain stores pay a
    significant premium due to poor access to chain stores in their
    neighborhoods, this is especially true in rural areas. One study
    revealed that the biggest factor contributing to higher grocery costs
    in poor neighborhoods is that large chain stores, where prices tend to
    be lower, are not located in these neighborhoods.\3\
        In reaching the TFP target most products are in there raw form, for
    example dry beans vs. canned beans, required significantly more
    planning and preparation time for meals. One study suggested that time
    is more constraining than money and that solely focusing on money could
    severely underestimate the gap between actual expenditures and those
    required to reach the TFP target.\5\
        The USDA's Low-Cost Food Plan--not the Thrifty Food Plan--is a much
    more appropriate basis for SNAP allotments. Such a change would improve
    the health and well-being of millions of low-income Americans and is
    more aligned with how much money is needed to maintain a more food-
    secure household for the month. The Low-Cost Food Plan allows for
    greater food variety and choices to support regional and cultural
    variations and preferences and allows for the purchase of more
    nutritionally adequate diets than those households spending at the TFP
    level. This is consistent with a study conducted in 2010, which found
    that increases in food spending positively impacted the dietary quality
    of SNAP participants.\6\ Other strategies could include incentivizing
    or subsidizing fruit and vegetables purchases for SNAP recipients,
    allowing states to adjust benefit costs based on cost of living
    standards for food, or allowing SNAP recipients to purchase certain
    products from online or delivery services for convenient access to
    fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods.
    Citations
        1. Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). ``Replacing the Thrifty
    Food Plan in Order to Provide Adequate Allotments for SNAP
    Beneficiaries'' http://frac.org/pdf/thrifty_food_plan_2012.pdf.
        2. Stewart, Hayden, and Noel Blisard. ``The Thrifty Food Plan and
    low-income households in the United States: What food groups are being
    neglected?.'' Food Policy 31.5 (2006): 469-482.
        3. Cassady, Diana, Karen M. Jetter, and Jennifer Culp. ``Is price a
    barrier to eating more fruits and vegetables for low-income families?''
    Journal of the American Dietetic Association 107.11 (2007): 1909-1915.
        4. Chung, Chanjin, and Samuel L. Myers. ``Do the poor pay more for
    food? An analysis of grocery store availability and food price
    disparities.'' Journal of Consumer Affairs 33.2 (1999): 276-296.
        5. Davis, George C., and Wen You. ``Not enough money or not enough
    time to satisfy the Thrifty Food Plan? A cost difference approach for
    estimating a money-time threshold.'' Food Policy 36.2 (2011): 101-107.
        6. Mabli, James, et al. Food expenditures and diet quality among
    low-income households and individuals. Mathematica Policy Research,
    2010.
    Response from Shreela V. Sharma, Ph.D., R.D., L.D., Associate
            Professor, Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and
            Environmental Sciences, University of Texas; Co-Founder,
            Brighter Bites
    Question Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
            from North Carolina
        Question. Dr. Sharma, the families that participate in your program
    Brighter Bites in Texas are using produce that is donated by food
    distributors rather than having to purchase fruits and vegetables on
    their own.
        Do you have an estimate of how much a family would have to increase
    their monthly grocery bill in order to buy produce if it was not
    donated to them through this program?
        Answer. Thank you for this important question. On average Brighter
    Bites families receive 30-35 lbs of a variety of seasonal produce each
    week through the program. We have estimated the retail cost of this
    amount of produce to be, on average, $32.37 (R$7.41) for the produce
    provided per week in the 2015-2016 school year. Additionally, we
    collect data from the families by asking our families ``on average, how
    much money did participating in Brighter Bites help you save on your
    monthly grocery bill?'' Of the 4,415 Brighter Bites families across
    Houston, Austin and Dallas who responded to this question in the 2015-
    2016 school year, families reported saving on average $34.30 per week
    on their grocery bill.
    Response from Jo Britt-Rankin, Ph.D., Associate Dean/Program Director,
            Human Environmental Sciences Extension, University of Missouri,
            Columbia, MO; on behalf of Extension Committee on Organization
            and Policy
    Question Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
            from North Carolina
        Question. Dr. Britt-Rankin, you mention in your testimony that
    land-grant universities offer multiple nutrition education programs at
    each institution that are complimentary and are not duplicative.
        Can you elaborate on how extension programs through the Expanded
    Food and Nutrition Education Program complement the outreach that is
    funded through SNAP education grants in the State of Missouri?
        Answer. Thank you Representative Adams for allowing me to provide
    further explanation . . .
        I have created the table to help describe the two programs
    nationally. You will then see the more specific Missouri example below
    the table.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        EFNEP                 SNAP-Ed
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Funding                     Smith-Lever [(3)(d)]/ Grant program to state
                                 Capacity to LGU's     SNAP agency
    Target Audience             Families w/children   SNAP recipients &
                                 in the home and       eligibles
                                 youth groups
    Program Delivery            Ave. of eight         Multiple methods--
                                 lessons for adults/   single and multi-
                                 six for youth.        session. Policy,
                                 Enrollment,           System & Environment
                                 graduation and        interventions to
                                 national reporting    complement direct
                                 forms.                education
    No. of Participants *       500,000 direct        41,489,783 direct
                                340,000 indirect      146,515,970 indirect
                                 education             Ed
                                                      374,888,292 social
                                                       marketing
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * EFNEP is people. SNAP-Ed is contacts.

        First, the guidance for SNAP-Ed specifically states that
    implementing agencies must develop a coordination plan and indicate
    what steps they will take to prevent duplication of services. Each year
    we work with USDA food assistance programs, state agencies, the hunger
    community and other health providers in Missouri to determine how we
    will provide education and services in concert with each other. Many of
    these partners are members of our nutrition network, MOCAN--Missouri
    Council on Activity and Nutrition. We determine who is providing
    services in specific locations and if Extension can provide
    complementary educational programs. We also survey to determine where
    gaps in services and education may exist.
        Internally, we evaluate these programs extensively each year. About
    10 years ago, we began to see our EFNEP enrollments begin to decline.
    At that time, our EFNEP paraprofessionals were primarily located in the
    more rural parts of the state. In these areas, the populations were
    sparse and it was difficult to locate adequate numbers of new
    participants. At that time, we determined that there was a greater
    unmet need in the urban/metropolitan areas of Kansas City and St.
    Louis. Given that each metropolitan area has over two million
    residents, we determined it best to centralize our efforts into the two
    largest population centers of the state.
        Although this move to the urban/metropolitan areas has concentrated
    our geographic reach, it has increased our participant numbers greatly.
    We also wanted to ensure that EFNEP and SNAP-Ed staff would not
    duplicate efforts or provide education in the same locations. Local
    program coordinators work with each program's educators to determine
    what organizations or sites will receive programming each given year.
    For example, EFNEP staff in St. Louis collaborates with the
    International Institute and provides nutrition education to new
    immigrant families. EFNEP staff also work with youth/community garden
    programs. SNAP-Ed in these same geographic locations focus their
    efforts on school-based, classroom education as well as seniors and
    adults without children in the homes.
        In Missouri, we have found this to be effective in increasing
    participation rates as well as preventing duplication of efforts. In
    2016, EFNEP reached more individuals than ever before. Having a very
    defined audience also allows the educators to become more focused on
    teaching and evaluating their respective program rather than searching
    for new audiences.
        I do want to be clear, in Missouri, we have not left the rural
    areas. SNAP-Ed in Missouri is a statewide program. We have educators in
    all 114 counties and the city of St. Louis. We utilize a combination of
    direct education, indirect education, social marketing, and PSE
    interventions to reach across the state.

                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

      (THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: EVALUATING ERROR RATES AND
                         ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES TO ENHANCE

                               PROGRAM INTEGRITY)

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
    1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael
    Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Conaway, Lucas, Gibbs,
    Crawford, Gibson, Benishek, Denham, LaMalfa, Davis, Walorski,
    Allen, Abraham, Moolenaar, Newhouse, Kelly, Peterson, David
    Scott of Georgia, Costa, Walz, Fudge, McGovern, DelBene, Vela,
    Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Nolan, Bustos, Aguilar, Adams, Graham,
    and Ashford.
        Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Callie McAdams, Jadi
    Chapman, Mary Nowak, Mollie Wilken, Stephanie Addison, Lisa
    Shelton, Liz Friedlander, Matthew MacKenzie, Nicole Scott, and
    Carly Reedholm.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
                         IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

        The Chairman. Well, good morning. This hearing of the
    Committee on Agriculture entitled, Past, Present, and Future of
    SNAP: Evaluating Error Rates and Anti-Fraud Measures to Enhance
    Program Integrity, will come to order. I have asked Trent Kelly
    to open us with a brief prayer. Trent.
        Mr. Kelly. Bow your heads. Dear Lord, we just ask that you
    bless our farmers in this great nation. We ask that you bless
    those who are needy and who are less fortunate than us. We ask
    that all we do in this nation honor, and we ask that you guide
    us in all our decisions. In Jesus' name, I pray. Amen.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Trent.
        I want to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing and
    thank them for taking the time to share their insight on how we
    can enhance program integrity within the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program. This hearing, builds upon the Committee's
    top-to-bottom review of SNAP and I hope it will provide a
    greater understanding of efforts being made to ensure SNAP is
    run at the highest caliber.
        Americans generally support welfare programs to help those
    who have fallen on hard times, the elderly, children, and
    disabled individuals who cannot care for themselves. In order
    to maintain support from American taxpayers, we as legislators
    and program administrators must ensure that these programs are
    accountable and transparent.
        One way we hold these programs accountable is by tracking
    the annual error rate. Error rates stem primarily from
    overpayments or underpayments to SNAP recipients by the states.
    Compared to other means-tested programs, SNAP has a relatively
    low error rate of 3.2 percent for Fiscal Year 2015. But, what
    does this number tell us? What are the factors used in
    determining the error rate? And when comparing error rates
    across programs, are we really comparing the same criteria?
        In addition to error rates, we will also be discussing
    fraud, and more specifically, trafficking, which occurs when
    SNAP benefits are exchanged for cash. USDA's most recent report
    for trafficking was 1.3 percent, but again, what does that rate
    really tell us and what additional improvements can be made?
        Finally, whether we are talking about errors or outright
    fraud, another key question is who should bear the financial
    and oversight responsibility for reducing misused dollars. The
    states or the Federal Government?
        While the error rate for SNAP is low, it translates to more
    than $2 billion per year in payments that are issued
    incorrectly. Programs can always improve, and as the Committee
    responsible for oversight of SNAP, we should always be pushing
    to ensure that SNAP is working well, both for the 45 million
    recipients that rely on food assistance, and for the taxpayers
    that fund that program. I think that is something we should all
    be able to agree on today. And I look forward to hearing from
    our panel.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
                              Congress from Texas
        I want to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing and thank them
    for taking the time to share their insight on how we can enhance
    program integrity within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
    This hearing, builds upon the Committee's top-to-bottom review of SNAP
    and I hope it will provide a greater understanding of efforts being
    made to ensure SNAP is run at the highest caliber.
        Americans generally support welfare programs to help those who have
    fallen on hard times, the elderly, children, and disabled individuals
    who cannot care for themselves. In order to maintain support from
    American taxpayers, we as legislators and program administrators must
    ensure that these programs are accountable and transparent.
        One way we hold these programs accountable is by tracking the
    annual error rate. Error rates stem primarily from overpayments or
    underpayments to SNAP recipients by the states. Compared to other
    means-tested programs, SNAP has a relatively low error rate of 3.2
    percent for FY 2015. But, what does this number tell us? What factors
    are used in determining the error rate? When comparing error rates
    across programs, are we really comparing the same criteria?
        In addition to error rates, we will also be discussing fraud, and
    more specifically, trafficking--which occurs when SNAP benefits are
    exchanged for cash. USDA's most recent report for trafficking was 1.3
    percent, but again, what does that rate really tell us and what
    additional improvements can be made? Finally, whether we are talking
    about errors or outright fraud, another key question is who should bear
    the financial and oversight responsibility for reducing misused
    dollars. The states or the Federal Government?
        While the error rate for SNAP is relatively low, it translates to
    more than $2 billion per year in payments that are issued incorrectly.
    Programs can always be improved and as the Committee responsible for
    oversight of SNAP, we should always be pushing to ensure that SNAP is
    working well. Both for the 45 million recipients that rely on food
    assistance, and for the taxpayers that fund the program. I think that
    is something we can all agree on here today, and with that said I look
    forward to hearing from our panel.

        The Chairman. With that, I ask the Ranking Member for any
    comments he might have.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
                       IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

        Mr. Peterson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
    thank today's witnesses for joining the Agriculture Committee's
    ongoing and thorough review of SNAP.
        States have a lot of flexibility when it comes to
    administering SNAP, and it is important that, especially as we
    continue our review and look ahead to possible policy changes,
    that we keep this in mind, and we keep a close eye on their
    work.
        We have made significant progress, I believe, in
    eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the SNAP Program, and
    with EBT cards it has made it very difficult for the recipients
    to cheat the system. But what still doesn't make sense to me is
    that we have created a system where states set the rules in
    some cases, and then we are left paying the bill. Categorical
    eligibility has allowed for different states to provide
    different benefits. The way programs like LIHEAP are also
    connected to SNAP, and they have only expanded these
    discrepancies.
        Giving states more power while the Federal Government is
    still footing the bill, like block grants, just, to me, doesn't
    make a lot of sense.
        If you had a business where somebody decided how to spend
    your money and then sent you the bill, I don't think you would
    survive very long. I question that whole direction.
        With that said, I am looking forward to today's testimony,
    and learning more about the efforts being undertaken here in
    Washington to address some of these issues and ensure a
    thorough oversight.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member.
        The chair requests that other Members submit their opening
    statements for the record so that our witnesses may begin their
    testimony, and ensure there is ample time for questions.
        I would like to welcome our witnesses to the witness table
    today. First, we will have Ms. Jessica Shahin, who is the SNAP
    Associate Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA,
    Washington, D.C. We also have Ms. Kay Brown, Director,
    Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government
    Accountability Office, Washington, D.C. And I have asked our
    college, Bob Gibbs, to introduce our third witness. Bob.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege to
    welcome our Auditor of the State of Ohio, the Honorable Dave
    Yost. He is in his second term. He has done a remarkable job
    working in the State of Ohio, auditing from the Board of
    Education, some local municipalities, state government, and he
    has really brought accountability and transparency, and is
    protecting taxpayers' dollars.
        And before he was an auditor for the State of Ohio, he was
    an auditor in Delaware County, and then he was also the county
    prosecutor, and has a law degree and a law background. So that
    really makes a good mix.
        And just on a personal note, he is quite a singer. He is a
    musician, I can't say it, and plays the guitar and been quite
    an entertainer. But he has done a great job, and his report
    here, Auditing the SNAP Program in the State of Ohio, is a good
    benefit to the Committee. Welcome.
        Thank you, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you.
        Jessica, I butchered your last name.
        Ms. Shahin. It is Shahin. It is Shahin. Rhymes with
    machine.
        The Chairman. All right, Ms. Shahin, the floor is yours for
    5 minutes, thank you. And I apologize for butchering your last
    name earlier.
        Ms. Shahin. Not at all.
        The Chairman. You are recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.

                 STATEMENT OF JESSICA SHAHIN, ASSOCIATE
               ADMINISTRATOR FOR SNAP, FOOD AND NUTRITION
                SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Ms. Shahin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Peterson. I am pleased to join you today to discuss the
    integrity of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
    SNAP.
        I have dedicated most of my career to making SNAP work for
    individuals and families in need of nutrition assistance. It
    has been a central principle for me, working at the state level
    and in Federal Administrations of both parties, that SNAP
    cannot succeed and continue without strong public confidence.
    All of us, Federal, state, and local, are rightly accountable
    for good stewardship of tax dollars. Strong efforts to use
    every dollar wisely and eliminate error and fraud are critical
    to preserving benefits for the vast majority of participants
    who play by the rules, and need help to ensure access to
    adequate and nutritious food.
        Integrity encompasses many aspects of SNAP operations. It
    includes administrative errors and other kinds of mistakes, as
    well as deliberate efforts to defraud the program. We must
    ensure that benefits go to eligible people in the proper
    amount. We must prevent fraud, and when it occurs, must hold
    bad actors accountable. And as a Federal oversight agency, we
    must ensure that states administer SNAP according to laws and
    regulations.
        FNS works on its own and with states to meet these
    responsibilities. The agency works closely with states to
    prevent and reduce errors at certification, through business
    process reengineering, IT improvements, and sharing best
    practices. While most such errors are just that; unintentional,
    clients who deliberately violate SNAP rules are disqualified
    and must repay the funds.
        FNS continues to investigate problems with the state-
    administered quality control system identified in 2015. We
    reached agreement with the USDA's Inspector General, and we are
    proceeding to implement all recommendations from its quality
    control audit, and completed reviews of 33 state agencies. When
    all reviews are complete by December 2016, USDA will release a
    Fiscal Year 2015 error rate.
        We are also updating guidance documents and preparing
    extensive training efforts for states and for FNS staff.
        Let me underscore that the QC system problems reflect
    actions by states, not by low-income households who receive
    SNAP.
        We are relentless in the fight against trafficking; the
    illegal sale or purchase of benefits. FNS restructured our
    retailer management functions into a single centralized
    business structure to better target resources to the greatest
    risks. We use data analytics, and have updated our ALERT system
    in-line with state-of-the-art technology to better detect
    suspicious SNAP redemptions. We have implemented policies that
    combat abuse and misuse of benefits, and imposed stronger
    penalties and sanctions against violating retailers. And
    finally, we have provided resources to retailers and the
    general public about ways to fight and report program abuse.
        But both stores and participants have a role in
    trafficking, and we support states in fighting recipient
    trafficking through predictive analytics, which can be paired
    with data on retailer disqualification, and excessive card
    replacements to target those most likely to traffic. These are
    just a few examples of actions and strategies now underway.
        As a civil servant, I am happy to do my work outside of the
    spotlight. Congressional testimony is certainly a change of
    pace for me. But I am truly pleased to have the chance to talk
    with you today about the initiatives we have underway, to
    highlight the work of the hundreds of people at FNS and in the
    states around the country committed to, and involved in,
    strengthening of SNAP integrity. We focus on this work because
    it reflects the government that Americans expect and deserve,
    and because it is essential to meeting the program's mission,
    now and into the future.
        I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Shahin follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Jessica Shahin, Associate Administrator for SNAP,
    Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
                                      D.C.
        Thank you, Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson for this
    opportunity to appear before you today. I am pleased to share what we
    are doing at the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to protect and ensure
    the integrity of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
    I am the Associate Administrator for SNAP, and have been the Program's
    career Senior Executive since 2004.
        SNAP is the cornerstone of our nation's nutrition assistance safety
    net--providing access to food and lifting millions of Americans out of
    poverty as they participate. The program currently provides food
    assistance, nutrition education and work support services to 44.3
    million low-income individuals according to the most recent month of
    data. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, 64 percent of SNAP participants were
    children, seniors, and those with disabilities and 42 percent of SNAP
    participants lived in a household with a currently working adult.
    Census-based estimates show that among SNAP households with at least
    one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than 80 percent work in the
    year before or after receiving SNAP benefits (Rosenbaum, 2013), an
    important reflection of who participates in this important nutrition
    safety net program.
        SNAP provides critical nutrition assistance to low-income
    households. Ensuring the integrity of the program is imperative to make
    sure that this assistance remains available to the households who need
    it, and so is paramount to me personally, as well as to the Agency. We
    define integrity broadly, to include ensuring the proper amount of
    benefits go to those who are eligible; ensuring that fraud and
    trafficking does not take place, and, when it does, that bad actors are
    held accountable; and, ensuring that states administer the Program in
    accordance with rules and regulations. That is our responsibility as
    the Federal oversight agency.
        Today I will largely limit my remarks to the importance and
    activities associated with integrity and accountability. But before I
    do, I would like to make note of the core program attributes and the
    people served by this important nutrition assistance program.
        Studies have shown that participating in SNAP is associated with a
    significant decrease in food insecurity and, in turn, helps to address
    a range of negative health outcomes that are associated with food
    insecurity. SNAP lifts millions of people out of poverty. Recent Census
    data indicate that 4.7 million people, including 2.1 million children,
    were lifted out of poverty due to SNAP benefits in 2014. The impact is
    greatest for the most poor, moving 13 percent of participating
    households from below to above 50 percent of the poverty line as it
    improves their well-being with better access to food resources. The
    Supplemental Poverty Measure shows that SNAP reduced child poverty by
    almost three percentage points in 2014--the largest child poverty
    impact of any safety net program other than refundable tax credits.
        Evidence is clear that SNAP benefits increase household
    expenditures on food and reduce food insecurity. But SNAP does not just
    help relieve short-term hardship. A growing body of high-quality
    research shows that the impact of SNAP's benefits are especially
    evident and wide-ranging for those who receive food assistance as
    children. This impact extends beyond the immediate goal of alleviating
    hunger and includes improvements in short-run health and academic
    performance as well as in long-run health, educational attainment, and
    economic self-sufficiency among disadvantaged women.
        SNAP also benefits local businesses and economies through its
    countercyclical design. During economic downturns, every $1 issued in
    SNAP benefits generates up to $1.80 in economic activity. Every time a
    family or individual uses SNAP benefits to put food on the table, it
    benefits the store and the employees where the purchase was made, the
    truck driver who delivered the food, the warehouses that stored it, the
    plant that processed it, and the farmer who produced the food. In
    short, SNAP strengthens low-income individuals, their families, and
    their communities.
        SNAP operates with efficiency. Almost 95 percent of Federal SNAP
    spending goes directly to families to buy food. Most of the rest goes
    toward the Federal share of state administrative costs. Only a small
    portion goes to Federal administration, including oversight of state
    operations and monitoring of retailers that accept SNAP. Relative to
    other Federal means-tested programs, SNAP spends far less on program
    administration.
        FNS and our state partners share in the administration of SNAP,
    including ensuring integrity in the program. At USDA, we establish
    rules and regulations, provide monitoring and oversight of state
    administration of the program, pay the full cost of SNAP benefits and
    pay half of the expenses incurred by the states to administer the
    program. We also provide technical assistance to states, including
    information and guidance about the many policy options and
    flexibilities available to states through regulations and statute.
    Overall, SNAP is a program that offers a great deal of state
    flexibility through options and waivers.
        USDA takes the lead on the authorization, monitoring and oversight
    of retailers that redeem SNAP benefits--over 260,000 retailers around
    the country. On behalf of American taxpayers, we work in concert with
    the Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) and in close
    coordination with the states that operate the program and others to
    protect the Federal investment in SNAP. We work together to make sure
    benefits are used as intended--for eligible food items. The biggest
    threat to this aspect of integrity is trafficking--the illegal sale or
    purchase of SNAP benefits for cash. FNS has focused resources at the
    doorstep of fraud and modernized our efforts using data analytics to
    root out and fight new tactics used by those who want to commit fraud.
    Retailers found trafficking are taken out of the program--permanently;
    other violations can result in monetary fines or temporary
    disqualification.
        Our state agency partners are responsible for investigating
    participant fraud and punishing those found to be trafficking.
    Punishments can include permanent disqualification and even
    prosecution. According to the latest data available, in FY 2015, states
    conducted approximately 723,000 investigations resulting in over 46,500
    disqualifications for recipient fraud and collected almost $86 million
    in fraud claims from households. The statute authorizes state agencies
    to retain 35 percent of the amount they collect on fraud claims.
    Currently, most of these claims are for fraud regarding efforts to
    collect benefits for which an individual or household is not eligible;
    however, we would like to see states focus more on the trafficking side
    as well and have developed predictive analytic models that states can
    use and are requiring stepped up reporting on anti-fraud activities to
    encourage more activity in this area.
        As vital as the program is to so many, and as well as it operates,
    we can all agree that it can do even better, and it is up to all of us,
    the Federal Government, the states, and the local providers to work
    together to improve it by holding ourselves accountable. FNS is
    committed to continually improving the integrity of SNAP. FNS has long
    recognized that SNAP cannot succeed without strong public confidence,
    so good stewardship of tax dollars is one of our most important
    objectives. That is why we continually strive to improve program
    oversight and to identify, penalize, and exclude those who seek to
    defraud the program. This is critical to preserving benefits for the
    vast majority of participants who play by the rules and need help to
    ensure their families have access to adequate and nutritious food.
        With that background on our program, let me now talk about what we
    have accomplished. FNS has succeeded in reducing trafficking from about
    four percent to 1.3 percent over the last 20 years. While the
    trafficking rate is low, and 98.7 percent of the benefits are used
    properly, we continue to focus on this vital area because, when almost
    $70 billion (in FY 2015) in taxpayer supported benefits are involved,
    continuous attention, energy and diligence is required. The following
    list describes actions taken by FNS to improve integrity related to
    retailer trafficking.

       We have restructured our retailer management functions into
            a single cohesive, centralized business structure that allows
            us to better target resources to particular high-risk areas;

       We have used data analytics to examine EBT transactions at
            stores as well as other retailer information, to focus on the
            stores most likely to traffic;

       We have upgraded our Anti-fraud Locator Using Electronic
            Benefit Transfer Retailer Transactions (ALERT) system to stay
            in step with state of the art technology to better detect
            suspicious SNAP redemption activity across the country;

       FNS implemented policies that combat abuse and the misuse of
            benefits and imposes stronger penalties and sanctions against
            retailers who violate program rules; and

       We have provided resources to retailers and the public about
            ways to fight fraud and how to report abuses to help stop
            trafficking.

        I am happy to report that our efforts, particularly those aimed at
    removing or preventing fraudulent retailers or those with other
    business integrity issues from participating in the Program, are
    working. In FY 2015, we issued sanctions against nearly 2,700 retailers
    who committed violations, reflecting an overall increase of 21 percent
    as compared to FY 2014.
        More than 1,900 stores were permanently disqualified, let me say
    again, permanently disqualified for life, one of the toughest sanctions
    in the Federal Government, for trafficking or falsifying an
    application, and over 700 stores were sanctioned for other violations
    such as the sale of ineligible items using SNAP. Our strengthened
    vetting policies and procedures have increased our ability to prevent
    the authorization of firms that attempt to circumvent SNAP's business
    integrity rules. In 2015, there was a 254 percent increase in stores
    denied SNAP participation because of problems with business integrity
    of store ownership as compared to 2010.
        Nevertheless, we continue to focus on improvement, particularly in
    the area of recipient trafficking. The Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) released a report a couple of years ago titled ``Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program: Enhanced Detection Tools and Reporting
    Could Improve Efforts to Combat Recipient Fraud.'' As noted in their
    report, FNS was already working to improve tools and technical
    assistance to states in this area; however, GAO also noted more could
    be done and recommended that FNS reassess current detection tools,
    reassess current financial incentives and issue guidance to assist
    states further in their efforts to detect fraud and report on their
    efforts. FNS agreed. Indeed, we had already begun the process. FNS
    issued almost $15 million in grants to states to improve detection,
    investigation and prosecution of recipient trafficking. These projects
    focused on the use of technology and data analytics to improve and
    better track outcomes.

       We contracted with one of the nation's premier data
            analytics consulting firms to improve business processes in
            this area and use cutting edge technology to build a model
            using predictive analytics to help states more effectively
            identify SNAP recipient trafficking. The models use a variety
            of eligibility and transaction data, including card replacement
            data.

       FNS has completed studies in seven SNAP state agencies: New
            York (Onondaga County), Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wisconsin
            (Milwaukee County), California (Sacramento County), and Texas.

       The preliminary results demonstrated success so this year we
            added four additional states Arizona, District of Columbia,
            Utah, and Washington to share this proven data analytics model.

        Predictive data analytics, when paired with relevant information
    such as retailer disqualifications and excessive requests for card
    replacements, can be most effective in targeting the most likely
    trafficking participants. Let me highlight a couple of examples of how
    working with states, FNS has helped to reduce trafficking. Texas, my
    home state, is a state with strong controls to prevent and investigate
    recipient fraud--the state operates an in-house data analytics program
    to identify and root out potential recipient trafficking. They also
    have strong business processes around their anti-fraud activities and
    have had significant success in this area. The State of South Carolina
    is also performing strongly, with over 83 percent of its investigations
    of potential trafficking now converted into successful
    disqualifications. This represents an increase of 22 percentage points
    from the state's investigation success rate prior to using FNS's model.
    Between March 2015, when FNS implemented the model, and December 2015,
    South Carolina disqualified 185 recipients for trafficking,
    representing a cost avoidance of just over $1 million. While these are
    examples of strong state efforts in the recipient trafficking arena,
    there is still much more than can be done.
        We are revising our state reporting form to provide FNS with more
    thorough and complete information on state anti-fraud activities and
    results. With this change, we will soon be in a better position to have
    more accurate information on what states are doing to combat
    trafficking and other forms of fraud, and be able to better analyze
    trends and returns on investment in state anti-fraud activities.
        FNS has also focused on enhancing tools to help combat recipient
    trafficking. In 2015, FNS conducted a pilot in Washington State to test
    innovative strategies for investigating and preventing trafficking
    attempts of SNAP benefits through social media websites. We are using
    lessons learned from these pilots to update our guidance to states for
    effectively combating such attempts, which we expect to release later
    this year.
        We are also enhancing our work with our state partners on combating
    recipient fraud. USDA continues to establish State Law Enforcement
    Bureau (SLEB) agreements with states, harnessing their additional law
    enforcement resources. The 2014 Farm Bill strengthened our ability to
    use these relationships to maintain focus on and expand recipient
    investigations in states as well. USDA continues to refer clients with
    suspicious transaction patterns at disqualified retailers to states for
    further investigation and encourages states to use that information to
    investigate and take action against clients believed to have
    trafficked.
        There have been recent discussions on allowing states to do more in
    the retailer trafficking arena, including the possibility of states
    taking over all retailer investigative and prosecution activities. We
    are always willing to avail ourselves of state assistance with retailer
    fraud in a coordinated manner and do so through SLEB agreements.
    However, consistent with provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill, we expect
    states to focus on the recipient trafficking side before engaging in a
    significant way with retailers. As such, USDA encourages states to take
    advantage of tools USDA has made available that can assist in the
    detection, investigation and prosecution of recipient fraud. We will
    continue to improve the tools available to states, provide technical
    assistance on how to use these tools, and share promising practices.
    States must pay close attention to recipients who request multiple EBT
    replacement cards. Though there may be a perfectly reasonable
    explanation, this is an indicator of fraud in certain circumstances. In
    fact, our data analytics project found that excessive card replacement
    requests is one of the leading indicators of potential trafficking. By
    SNAP regulation, states have the option to call clients into the local
    office after the fourth request for a replacement card before issuing a
    new one; yet, to date, very few states have taken that option. States
    need to recognize the predictive value of these data and take full
    advantage of a proven successful option that is available to them.
        Another key component to effective state strategies for combating
    fraud is client education. FNS recently released an education package
    to help state agencies communicate the rules and the responsibilities
    involved with the program to participating recipients. Education such
    as this encourages voluntary compliance and prevents SNAP trafficking
    up front. In this area, as with others, states vary in their focus and
    level of effort. There is room for states to do more education about
    SNAP rules with participating households.
    Other Integrity Efforts
        While cases of duplicate participation (i.e., households
    simultaneously certified for benefits in two states) are low, it is
    another issue that USDA takes very seriously. USDA supported a pilot
    project in conjunction with OMB's Partnership for Program Integrity and
    Innovation and a five state consortium to develop the National Accuracy
    Clearinghouse (NAC). The NAC established a database pilot to test a
    shared data clearinghouse that allows the pilot states to check in
    real, or near-real, time whether a SNAP applicant is already receiving
    SNAP benefits in another pilot state. The final report indicates that
    the NAC reduced duplicate participation in all five pilot states,
    though effectiveness varied by the level of automation each state was
    able to implement. Although duplicate participation is already low,
    states saw significant reductions in duplicate participation from pre-
    pilot levels. FNS has urged states for a number of years to consider
    data-matching agreements with border states that have mobile
    populations and the pilot reinforces this type of data sharing.
    Massachusetts and New York are examples of states that are already
    doing this type of match via a low tech data batching approach. Other
    states could do the same.
        USDA and states have worked together for many years to reduce
    payment errors in SNAP--indeed, improper payments in SNAP are among the
    lowest in the Federal Government. Improper payments are different from
    fraud--the vast majority of improper payments, including both over-
    payments and under-payments, are the result of mistakes on the part of
    states administering the program and households applying for or
    participating in the program.
        Our efforts to improve SNAP program integrity while ensuring access
    to benefits for people in need of food assistance rely on a strong
    partnership between FNS and our State Agency partners. We have worked
    together to strengthen the ability of states to correctly determine
    eligibility and benefit amounts through policy simplification, improved
    use of technology, and business process reengineering.
        The primary way we work with states to identify and reduce payment
    errors is through the SNAP Quality Control (QC) system. QC is the
    process by which states review a sample of SNAP cases and determine the
    states' rates of improper payments--both over- and under-payments--on
    an annual basis. These rates are then aggregated into the national
    error rate for SNAP and used to determine state bonuses and liabilities
    for payment accuracy. FNS also reviews a sample of the state files to
    provide oversight of states' QC processes.
        To be clear, when we are talking about error rates, we are talking
    about measuring proper administration of the program, including whether
    the program's administrative processes correctly determine eligibility
    and compute benefits for those households found eligible. Most errors
    stem from unintentional mistakes on the part of the state agency or the
    household, not fraud. The majority of the errors (62 percent) are State
    Agency errors, while 38 percent are client errors. If an improper
    payment is determined to be an intentional program violation on the
    part of the client, they are disqualified from the program and must pay
    the funds back to the government.
        In FY 2015, USDA began a process to assess and implement a thorough
    review of the SNAP QC system in all 53 states to ensure state
    administration of SNAP was in line with Federal rules and regulations.
    We have completed reviews of 33 state agencies and will complete all
    reviews by December 2016, at which time USDA will release an updated
    SNAP error rate for FY 2015. In states where problems with the QC
    system are found, USDA requires states to take immediate corrective
    action and USDA will provide close oversight to ensure these actions
    are taken.
        The ongoing review is part of an effort to ensure state compliance
    with Federal rules and regulations related to the reporting of improper
    payments and to ensure accountability to the taxpayers who support this
    important nutrition program. The ongoing reviews look at both
    intentional and unintentional state non-compliance in the QC process,
    such as states misinterpreting FNS QC requirements or providing
    inadequate oversight of the state QC review process or a lack of
    cooperation with FNS QC monitoring efforts. Let me be clear, the
    quality control issues we have found in some states reflect actions by
    states, not by low-income households participating in SNAP.
        We take our oversight responsibility seriously and, while the
    reviews continue, USDA is working internally and with states to ensure
    all processes are fully up to date and consistent with Federal
    guidelines as well as recommendations from the USDA Office of Inspector
    General audit published September 30, 2015, which raised a number of
    issues with state administration of the quality control system. I am
    pleased to report that we now have reached agreement on all 19 audit
    recommendations from the OIG report.
        USDA has a responsibility in the QC process and FNS will implement
    additional activities within the next 90 days to both improve state QC
    operations and to ensure that FNS's oversight of QC systems is robust.
    This includes establishing a new national QC training curriculum which
    we will use to train QC staff over the next 6 months, revising FNS' QC
    policy guidance to clarify rules and procedures, and developing a new
    QC integrity management evaluation guide that FNS oversight staff will
    use to regularly re-assess state operations. USDA will also strengthen
    the current training of Federal QC reviewers through development of a
    policy-focused curriculum that will be completed by the end of the
    fiscal year.
    Conclusion
        Proper stewardship of Federal funds is intrinsically linked to
    constant and vigilant attention to program integrity and proper
    implementation of our role in oversight and monitoring of state program
    operations. And although the vast majority of those involved with SNAP,
    recipients as well as retailers, are honest and abide by the rules, we
    cannot accept or tolerate any fraud or abuse. The nation entrusts us--
    USDA and our partner states--to administer SNAP, a program funded by
    the American taxpayer with accountability and integrity. Americans
    expect and deserve a government that ensures their tax dollars are
    managed efficiently and with integrity. To sustain public confidence in
    these programs, we must meet this expectation.
        FNS will continue to pay close attention to these issues and to act
    to reduce fraud and improper payments. We will continue to work with
    states, to ensure they take the actions necessary to protect the
    integrity of this critical program. We are stepping up our Federal
    efforts to combat retailer fraud and to ensure that state procedures
    are in line with all Federal requirements. I speak for all of my
    colleagues at FNS when I say that ensuring that SNAP meets the highest
    standards of integrity is a top priority and central to our efforts to
    ensure that those who need help affording food get the help they need.
    I appreciate the Committee's interest in promoting and improving SNAP
    integrity, and I look forward to working with this Committee and
    Congress to keep public confidence in this vital program. I would be
    happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

        The Chairman. Ms. Brown, 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF KAY E. BROWN, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND
        INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE,
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Ms. Brown. Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and
    Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to
    discuss our work on error rates and fraud in SNAP. My remarks
    are based on our recently completed work on program policies
    that can affect the error rate, and our 2014 report on fraud by
    SNAP recipients.
        First, on how SNAP policies can affect program error rates.
    Since 1977, USDA's quality control system has provided an
    estimate of SNAP benefits that were paid either in the wrong
    amounts, or to persons not eligible to receive them. This error
    rate also serves as the program's improper payment rate, which
    is reported to OMB annually. In recent years, this SNAP error
    rate has been on a mostly downward trend, and has reached all-
    time lows. However, OMB still considers SNAP a high error
    program. Because it is so large, even a 3.7 percent error rate
    in 2014 resulted in $2.6 billion in improper payments.
        These improper payments can be caused by either the
    applicant or the caseworker. Many factors must be considered
    when determining eligibility, creating multiple opportunities
    for error. And the most common source of error is determining
    the applicant's income. We found that when states adopted
    options or waivers that simplified program requirements, such
    as when to report income changes, these actions likely
    contributed to a decline in payment errors. Most, but not all,
    of the options and waivers we reviewed had this likely effect.
        On the other hand, a few program changes likely led to an
    increase in the error rate; notably the threshold tolerance
    level changed from $50 to $37 in 2014. This is the dollar
    amount below which errors are not included in the error rate
    calculation. What this means is that when the threshold was
    $50, a monthly benefit error of $40 would not have been counted
    in the error rate calculation, but when the threshold was
    changed to $37, that same $40 error would have been counted in
    the calculation because it exceeded the threshold. USDA
    reported that this threshold change increased the error rate
    for 2014.
        In our review, we also compared the methodology for
    calculating the SNAP error rate with that of three other
    programs for low-income families; SSI, Medicaid, and EITC. We
    found some similarities and some differences in how reviews of
    cases were conducted, and which cases were factored into the
    error rate calculation. And, for example again, SNAP was the
    only program that had an error tolerance threshold.
        I should mention that we just recently learned that USDA
    would not be releasing its 2015 error rate on time, and is in
    the process of reviewing all state quality control systems,
    stemming from a review by USDA's Office of the Inspector
    General. This raises some concerns about the integrity of how
    the quality control process is implemented, and we look forward
    to learning more about the results of the state reviews and the
    effect on the national error rate.
        Turning now to recipient fraud. This can occur when
    applicants provide false or misleading information to obtain
    benefits, or when recipients misuse benefits by exchanging them
    for cash or nonfood goods or services, known as trafficking. We
    studied the efforts of 11 selected states to address recipient
    fraud, and found that most of the states had difficulties
    conducting fraud investigations, particularly in light of the
    growth in the number of participants at that time. Also, the
    resources states dedicated to their investigative units varied
    widely. We recommended that USDA reassess its financial
    incentives for state anti-fraud efforts.
        We also found that the tools USDA recommended states use to
    detect online trafficking were of limited use. USDA's guidance
    on recipients who requested multiple EBT cards did not
    necessarily help states detect whether this involved fraud, and
    states were not submitting reliable data on their anti-fraud
    activities due to unclear reporting guidance. We made
    recommendations in each of these areas and USDA is taking steps
    to address them, but has yet to finalize action on any of them.
        In conclusion, SNAP provides important benefits to
    millions. Given the significant size of the program and the
    reality of constrained public resources, it is vital that USDA
    make every effort to make sure SNAP benefits are paid
    accurately, and the funds are used for their intended purpose.
        This concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any
    questions you have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Kay E. Brown, Director, Education, Workforce, and
      Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington,
                                      D.C.
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program_Policy Changes and
            Calculation Methods Likely Affect Improper Payment Rates, and
            USDA Is Taking Steps to Help Address Recipient Fraud
    GAO Highlights
    Why GAO Did This Study
        In Fiscal Year 2015, SNAP, the nation's largest nutrition
    assistance program, provided about 46 million low-income people with
    $70 billion in benefits. USDA and the states partner to operate the
    program and address issues that affect program integrity, including
    improper payments and fraud.
        This testimony summarizes GAO's recently completed work on SNAP
    improper payment rates and GAO's 2014 report on recipient fraud. It
    addresses: (1) the effects of SNAP policies on the rates; (2) how the
    SNAP improper payment rate calculation methodology compares to those of
    other Federal programs for low-income individuals; and (3) GAO's 2014
    findings on efforts to combat SNAP recipient fraud. GAO reviewed
    relevant Federal laws, regulations, guidance, documents, and program
    data; interviewed relevant Federal officials; and gathered information
    from states. For the 2014 report, GAO also interviewed officials from
    11 states that served about \1/3\ of all SNAP recipient households,
    though GAO's results are not generalizable to all states. This
    testimony also includes USDA's actions to date on GAO's 2014
    recommendations.
    What GAO Recommends
        In 2014, GAO recommended that USDA take several steps to improve
    state financial incentives, fraud detection tools, and reporting
    methods. USDA agreed with these recommendations and has taken some
    steps to address them. GAO is not making new recommendations at this
    time.
        View GAO-16-708T (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-708T). For
    more information, contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-7215 or
    brownke@gao.gov.
    What GAO Found
        Over the last 10 years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
    has reported that improper payment rates for the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP) have ranged from an estimated 5.8 percent to
    3.2 percent of all payments, likely reflecting, in part, certain policy
    changes and calculation methods. Many factors affect low-income
    households' eligibility for SNAP and the amount of benefits they
    receive, creating multiple opportunities for errors in the eligibility
    determination process conducted by states. However, GAO found that
    certain state or Federal program changes can affect the likelihood of
    these errors. For example, when states adopted available policy
    flexibilities that simplified or lessened participant reporting
    requirements, these changes reduced the opportunity for error and led
    to a decline in the improper payment rate, according to a USDA study.
    Conversely, other changes may have led to an increase in the improper
    payment rate. USDA cited the change from only counting errors over $50
    in the rate to counting all errors over $37 as a key factor in an
    increase in the rate in Fiscal Year 2014.
        SNAP's improper payment rate calculation methodology is generally
    similar to that used by other large Federal programs for low-income
    individuals, including Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and
    Supplemental Security Income (SSI), though some differences may affect
    the resulting program improper payment rates. To generate improper
    payment rates, all four programs draw representative samples of their
    recipients and report their improper payment rates at high levels of
    precision. Yet, some methodological differences among the programs
    likely affect the resulting rates. For example, when there is
    insufficient information to review eligibility and benefit
    determination for a selected case under review, Medicaid counts the
    full benefit amount as an error, SNAP makes an adjustment in the
    improper payment rate calculation but does not include the full benefit
    amount as an error, and SSI removes such cases entirely from the
    sample.
        Fraud is also a key indicator of program integrity, and in 2014,
    GAO found that selected states employed a range of tools to detect
    potential SNAP recipient fraud, though they faced some challenges.
    Recipient fraud can occur when applicants make false or misleading
    statements to obtain benefits or when recipients misuse benefits by
    exchanging them for cash or non-food goods or services. All 11 selected
    states that GAO reviewed matched information provided by SNAP
    applicants and recipients against various data sources to check for
    accuracy, but efforts varied widely among these states. Some states
    suggested changing the financial incentive structure to promote fraud
    investigations. Some states also reported limitations of USDA's
    required approach to monitoring benefit card replacements, and GAO
    developed a more targeted approach by combining data sources to
    identify households potentially engaged in trafficking. In addition,
    although USDA had increased its oversight of state anti-fraud
    activities since Fiscal Year 2011, GAO found that USDA did not have
    consistent and reliable data on states' activities because its
    reporting guidance lacked specificity. This limited USDA's ability to
    monitor states and find more effective ways to combat recipient fraud.

        Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
    Committee:

        Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on improper
    payments and fraud in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), previously known as
    the Food Stamp Program. During Fiscal Year 2015, SNAP provided food and
    nutrition assistance to almost 46 million individuals for a total of
    approximately $70 billion in benefits for the year. SNAP benefits are
    provided to low-income households; state agencies administer the
    program to assess applicants' eligibility and determine benefit
    amounts. Because many factors affect eligibility and benefit
    determination, there are multiple opportunities for errors to occur in
    this process that may result in improper payments. Improper payments
    are payments to individuals that were made in an incorrect amount or
    should not have been made at all, including both overpayments and
    underpayments. Improper payments may be caused by caseworker or
    participant errors. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
    designated SNAP as a high-error program due to the estimated dollar
    amount in improper payments. Specifically, for SNAP payments made in
    Fiscal Year 2014, USDA reported in its Fiscal Year 2015 agency
    financial report that $2.6 billion, or 3.66 percent of all payments
    were improper.\1\ Other large Federal programs for low-income
    individuals, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Medicaid, and
    Supplemental Security Income (SSI), currently report improper payment
    rates greater than SNAP's rate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ USDA, Agency Financial Report: Creating a USDA for the 21st
    Century, Fiscal Year 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, while some SNAP participants make unintentional errors
    that result in improper payments, others make intentional errors or
    misuse their benefits, practices which are considered fraud. USDA's
    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), in partnership with state agencies,
    is tasked with establishing the proper agency controls that help ensure
    SNAP program funds are used for their intended purpose. However, FNS
    program officials have had long-standing concerns that some recipients
    can falsify information to receive benefits, or misuse their benefits
    to solicit or obtain non-food goods, services, and cash--a practice
    known as trafficking.
        SNAP fraud is also committed by retailers approved to accept SNAP
    benefits who engage in trafficking. State agencies are directly
    responsible for detecting, investigating, and prosecuting recipient
    fraud, and FNS is responsible for pursuing retailer fraud. SNAP fraud
    committed by recipients and retailers undermines the integrity of the
    program and the public's confidence in the program.
        My testimony today summarizes the results of our recently completed
    work on SNAP improper payment rates and our 2014 report on recipient
    fraud. Specifically, I will discuss: (1) the effects of SNAP policies
    on the improper payment rates; (2) how the SNAP improper payment rate
    calculation methodology compares to those of other Federal programs for
    low-income individuals; and (3) our 2014 findings on efforts to combat
    SNAP recipient fraud.
        For our recently completed work on SNAP improper payment rates, we
    reviewed relevant Federal laws and regulations, as well as USDA policy
    memos that provided SNAP policy guidance to states.\2\ We also reviewed
    state SNAP waivers approved by USDA and state policy options.\3\ To
    assess change over time, we analyzed states' adoption of certain
    options since 2003 that have the potential to affect a large portion of
    the eligible population.\4\ To assess the expected effect of policy
    changes on the SNAP improper payment rate, we reviewed prior GAO work,
    and FNS and USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) documents, that
    describe the characteristics of policies that may affect the improper
    payment rate.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ We reviewed SNAP policy guidance issued to states from Fiscal
    Year 2006 through Fiscal Year 2015.
        \3\ State policy options are flexibilities set forth in Federal law
    or regulation that permit states to use alternative procedures when
    administering their SNAP program. We reviewed USDA's SNAP Certification
    Policy Waiver Database (updated as of March 2016) and state options
    identified in USDA's SNAP State Options Report for September 2013 (a
    state options report with information as of October 2015 was
    subsequently released, after we had completed our review). See Appendix
    I for more information on state flexibilities.
        \4\ To assess change over time, we also analyzed states' adoption
    of certain options from May 2003 to September 2013, that have the
    potential to affect a large portion of the eligible population, for
    example, by affecting reporting requirements or income eligibility
    guidelines. Such options include simplified reporting, broad-based
    categorical eligibility, and the simplified standard utility allowance.
        \5\ We also reviewed our prior work and USDA reports issued since
    2004 that analyzed the effect of certain state flexibilities on
    improper payment rates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We analyzed which Federal and state policy changes had these
    characteristics, and then we assessed the likely cumulative expected
    directional effect of each policy on the improper payment rate. To
    obtain information on states' opinions regarding SNAP changes and other
    factors that may have affected SNAP improper payment rates, we
    administered a questionnaire by e-mail to state SNAP directors of all
    50 states and the District of Columbia from February through May 2016.
    Where necessary, we followed up with states to clarify their responses
    and obtained a 100 percent response rate. While we did not validate
    specific information administrators reported through our survey, we
    reviewed their responses and conducted follow-up, as necessary, to
    determine that their responses were complete, reasonable, and
    sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this statement.\6\ To compare
    SNAP's improper rate calculation methodology to other means-tested
    programs, we selected three Federal programs for low-income
    individuals: EITC, Medicaid,\7\ and SSI. These programs, together with
    SNAP, comprise almost \2/3\ of Federal low-income obligations, and
    together encompass both state and federally administered programs. Like
    SNAP, these programs are also included in the Federal Government's
    Payment Accuracy website's high improper payment programs list.\8\ For
    each of the programs, we reviewed the relevant agency financial
    reports, program data, and program documents, as well as relevant OIG
    reports and GAO reports, and we interviewed program officials involved
    with improper payment rate calculation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Also, as part of our survey development, we pre-tested the
    questionnaire with four states and had internal and external experts
    review it, and incorporated comments as appropriate.
        \7\ The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) measures and
    reports Medicaid improper payments in three component areas: fee-for-
    service claims, managed care, and eligibility. For the purposes of this
    report, we reviewed the eligibility component's improper payment rate
    methodology. HHS's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
    recently proposed changes to the calculation of Medicaid improper
    payments rates. Medicaid/CHIP Program; Medicaid Program and Children's
    Health Insurance Program (CHIP); Changes to the Medicaid Eligibility
    Quality Control and Payment Error Rate Measurement Programs in Response
    to the Affordable Care Act., 81 Fed. Reg. 40596 (proposed June 22,
    2016). These proposed changes were outside the scope of our review.
        \8\ We have also included these programs in our prior work that
    identifies high improper payment programs. See, GAO, Fiscal Outlook:
    Addressing Improper Payments and the Tax Gap Would Improve the
    Government's Fiscal Position, GAO16-92T, (Washington, D.C.: October 1,
    2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For our 2014 report, we focused on Federal and state efforts to
    combat SNAP recipient fraud for Fiscal Years 2009 to 2014.\9\ We
    reviewed relevant Federal laws, regulations, program guidance and
    reports, and we interviewed FNS officials in headquarters and all seven
    regional offices. We also interviewed knowledgeable state and local
    officials about their recipient anti-fraud work and obtained related
    documentation in 11 states.\10\ Further, we took steps to assess the
    use of monthly benefit data and website monitoring tools to detect
    potential SNAP fraud. More detailed information about our objectives,
    scope, and methodology can be found in our issued report. This
    testimony also includes updates on the status of our recommendations
    from the 2014 report, as of June 2016, which were obtained by
    contacting agency officials and reviewing relevant documents.\11\ We
    shared a draft of this statement with the relevant agencies and
    incorporated technical comments as appropriate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ See GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Enhanced
    Detection Tools and Reporting Could Improve Efforts to Combat Recipient
    Fraud, GAO-14-641 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-641) (Washington,
    D.C.: August 21, 2014).
        \10\ The 11 states in our review were: Florida, Maine,
    Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina,
    Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. The states served about \1/3\ of
    all SNAP recipient households, though our results are not generalizable
    to all states. We chose these states to achieve variation in geographic
    location, and a mix of high, medium and low SNAP improper payment
    rates, percent of the total number of SNAP households nationwide, and
    proportion of recipients whom state officials reported as disqualified
    from the program due to non-compliance.
        \11\ See GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Enhanced
    Detection Tools and Reporting to Combat Recipient Fraud Are in
    Development, GAO-16-719T (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-719)
    (Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2016.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The work upon which this statement is based was in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
    require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
    appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
    conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
    obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
    based on our audit objectives.
    Background
        SNAP, formerly known as the Federal Food Stamp Program, is intended
    to help low-income individuals and families obtain a better diet by
    supplementing their income with benefits to purchase food. The Federal
    Government pays the full cost of SNAP benefits and shares the costs of
    administering the program with the states.\12\ FNS is responsible for
    promulgating program regulations, ensuring that state officials
    administer the program in compliance with program rules, and
    authorizing and monitoring retailers who accept SNAP benefits in
    exchange for food. The states administer the program by determining
    whether households meet the program's eligibility requirements,
    calculating the amount of their monthly benefits, and issuing benefits
    on Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, as well as investigating
    possible program violations by benefit recipients.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ For purposes of SNAP, states include the 50 states, the
    District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and reservations
    of Indian Tribes who meet the requirements for participating as a state
    agency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Determination of Eligibility and Benefits
        A household's eligibility for participation in SNAP is determined
    based on basic, non-financial, program requirements and the income and
    resources of its members. Non-financial program requirements include
    such things as residency and citizenship status. To determine financial
    eligibility, the caseworker first calculates the household's gross
    income, which generally cannot exceed 130 percent of the Federal
    poverty guidelines (100 percent of the poverty guidelines in certain
    circumstances). Then the caseworker determines the household's net
    income, which generally cannot exceed 100 percent of the poverty
    guidelines. Net income is determined by deducting certain expenses from
    gross income, such as dependent care costs, medical expenses, utilities
    costs, and shelter expenses. Information on the household's resources
    (such as bank accounts and certain vehicles) may also be collected to
    assess whether these exceed defined limits. The net monthly income
    amount is then used in determining the household's benefit amount,
    subject to maximum benefit limits.\13\ After eligibility is
    established, households are certified to receive benefits for periods
    ranging from 1 to 24 months depending upon household circumstances.
    Once the certification period ends, there is a recertification process
    whereby households reapply for benefits, at which time eligibility and
    benefit levels are redetermined.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ FNS sets the SNAP maximum monthly benefit by household size.
    The maximum monthly benefit in Fiscal Year 2016 for a household of
    three is $511 for the 48 contiguous states and the District of
    Columbia. Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Alaska and Hawaii have higher
    maximum monthly benefit levels.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State Options and Waivers
        While many of the rules governing SNAP are set at the Federal level
    and apply uniformly in all states, states are also allowed flexibility
    in establishing some state-specific policy modifications through the
    use of options and waivers. SNAP's statutes and regulations provide
    state agencies with various policy options. In contrast, waivers
    require states to obtain FNS's permission before they are implemented.
    According to USDA, states adopt these flexibilities to better target
    benefits to those most in need, streamline program administration and
    operations, and coordinate SNAP with other programs. For example, one
    state option pertaining to reporting requirements, called simplified
    reporting, only requires households to report changes when their income
    rises above a certain level. In contrast, households for which this
    option does not apply are required to report changes more frequently.
    Another state option, broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE),
    allows states to make households that receive non-cash services funded
    by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), such as a toll-free
    number to obtain program information or an informational brochure,
    automatically eligible for SNAP.\14\ Through this option, the TANF non-
    cash service income and asset requirements become those relevant for
    SNAP, which we previously reported, resulted in some states effectively
    removing or increasing SNAP asset limits, raising the SNAP gross income
    limit, and removing the SNAP net income limit.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ The TANF block grant, which is administered by HHS, provides
    Federal funding to states, which they are required to supplement with
    their own funds, to provide cash assistance and a variety of other
    benefits and services to meet the needs of low-income families with
    children.
        \15\ GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Improved
    Oversight of State Eligibility Expansions Needed, GAO-12-670 (http://
    www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-670) (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2012).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SNAP Improper Payment Rates
        According to USDA, for the most recent 10 years for which there are
    SNAP improper payment rate estimates available (for benefits paid in
    Fiscal Years 2005-2014), the national SNAP improper payment rate,
    combining both overpayments and underpayments, has declined or stayed
    the same in all but Fiscal Year 2014, as shown in Figure 1. For
    benefits paid in Fiscal Year 2014--the most recent year for which data
    are available--the rate increased to 3.66 percent from a low of 3.20
    percent in Fiscal Year 2013. State-specific improper payment rates
    varied among states; for example, in Fiscal Year 2014, states' improper
    payment rates ranged from 0.42 percent to 7.61 percent.
    Figure 1: SNAP U.S. Estimated Improper Payment Rate for Benefits Paid
            in Fiscal Years 2005-2014
    Percentage of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits

              Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data.DGAO-16-
            708T.
              Note: Improper payment rate estimates shown in this figure
            for Fiscal Years 2007-2014 have a margin of error no greater
            than plus or minus 0.33 percentage points at the 95 percent
            level of confidence. Confidence level and margin of error
            information were not available from USDA's Performance and
            Accountability Reports for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006.
              For purposes of government-wide reporting, such as at the
            Federal Government's Payment Accuracy website, SNAP's improper
            payment rates may be reflected as the fiscal year in which they
            are reported in the USDA agency financial report, not the year
            in which benefits were paid.

        According to USDA, SNAP improper payments are caused by variances
    in any of the key factors involved in determining SNAP eligibility and
    benefit amounts, and household income was the most common primary cause
    of dollar errors; accounting for more than half of the variances for
    improper payments in Fiscal Year 2013.\16\ A variance occurs when a
    quality control reviewer finds the incorrect application of policy, the
    basis of issuance is incorrect, or there is a difference between the
    information that was used and the information that should have been
    used to determine a household's monthly SNAP benefit amount. Cases may
    have multiple variances that result in benefit errors. Further, SNAP
    errors result from administrative as well as recipient errors. In
    Fiscal Year 2013, USDA reported that 62.44 percent of errors were
    because of administrative errors by the state agencies, and 37.27
    percent of errors were because of recipient errors. Some of the errors
    may be attributable to recipient fraud; however, the magnitude of such
    program abuse is unknown.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Fiscal year 2013 is the latest year for which this information
    is available. Income variances accounted for 57 percent of improper
    payment cases, while deduction variances accounted for 27 percent, non-
    financial variances for 14 percent, and income and other variances each
    at one percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Quality Control System
        In response to a requirement in Federal law, FNS developed its
    original quality control process for SNAP in 1977 to track and measure
    errors in both eligibility and benefit determinations for the program.
    According to FNS officials, each month, a state's SNAP quality control
    staff selects for review a representative sample of households that
    received SNAP benefits.\17\ The quality control staff review each
    sample case, both by reviewing the recipient household's file and
    contacting the recipient, to verify whether the recipient's eligibility
    and benefit amount were determined correctly. If the reviewer finds
    that someone was incorrectly deemed eligible, the entire amount of the
    benefit is counted as an error. If the reviewer finds that the benefit
    amount provided to the recipient differs from the correct benefit
    amount by more than a specified dollar amount, $37 in Fiscal Year 2014,
    the difference between the amount disbursed and the correct amount is
    counted as an error. Cases that are identified as ``not subject to
    review'' or that the reviewer cannot complete, such as those for which
    the reviewer is unable to establish contact with the recipient or
    verify income information, are removed from the sample. The statewide
    sample is designed to produce a valid statewide improper payment rate,
    which is the sum of the overpayments and underpayments divided by the
    value of all payments.\18\ Some of these erroneous payments may be due
    to fraud, but others may be due to unintentional caseworker or
    participant error.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Closed cases for which benefits were denied, suspended, or
    terminated are also sampled and reviewed and an error rate is
    determined for such cases. This error rate is termed the Case and
    Procedural Error Rate (CAPER). This statement focuses on active case
    errors, and not CAPER.
        \18\ However, in an OIG report published in September 2015, the OIG
    noted that the application of the methodology for estimating FNS' SNAP
    improper payment rate needed improvement. The OIG found that states
    weakened the quality control process by using third-party consultants
    and error review committees to mitigate individual quality control-
    identified errors, rather than improve eligibility determinations; and
    quality control staff also treated error cases non-uniformly. The OIG
    concluded that FNS' quality control process may have understated SNAP's
    improper payment rate. USDA, Office of Inspector General, FNS Quality
    Control Process for SNAP Error Rate, September 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FNS regional offices are to approve the states' sampling plans,
    validate the states' samples, and review a subsample of the states'
    reviews to ensure accuracy. They also are to handle informal resolution
    discussions with states regarding disputes resulting from differences
    between the state and FNS reviews. Disputes that are not resolved
    informally can be appealed to FNS for arbitration. According to FNS
    officials, upon the completion of this process, the improper payment
    rates are adjusted to reflect the final results. FNS makes a further
    adjustment of a state's error rate if more than two percent of the
    state's cases selected for review could not be completed. FNS then
    combines the adjusted states' improper payment rates, weighting each
    state's improper payment rate by its actual caseload, to determine a
    national improper payment rate.
        Once the Federal adjustments are made to states' error rates, FNS
    imposes penalties or provides bonuses to certain states based on
    various measures related to states' payment accuracy and other
    measures.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ In addition to payment accuracy measures, bonuses are given
    for states' rates of improper denials, suspensions, and terminations;
    states' level of program access; and states' application processing
    timeliness.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2015, USDA began a review of state quality control systems in
    all states in response to a report from its OIG that identified
    concerns in the application of the quality control process. On June 24,
    2016, USDA notified the states that it had completed reviews in 33
    states and expected to complete the remaining reviews no later than
    December 31, 2016, at which time it would release a national error rate
    for payments made in Fiscal Year 2015. In its letter to state
    officials, USDA explained that the ongoing review is looking at both
    intentional and unintentional non-compliance in the quality control
    process by states, such as misinterpreting FNS requirements or
    providing inadequate oversight of the quality control review process
    itself. States will receive a written report documenting any violations
    and outlining required corrective action steps, according to USDA. The
    effect of these ongoing reviews on the SNAP error rates is unknown at
    this time.
    SNAP Fraud
        FNS and state agencies are both responsible for addressing SNAP
    fraud. Acts of SNAP fraud include recipients making false or misleading
    statements in order to obtain benefits, as well as recipients and
    retailers engaging in SNAP trafficking--using benefits in unallowable
    ways, such as by exchanging benefits for cash or non-food goods and
    services, or attempting to do so. State agencies are directly
    responsible for detecting, investigating, and prosecuting recipient
    fraud, and FNS is responsible for providing guidance and monitoring
    these state activities. FNS also investigates and resolves cases of
    retailer fraud.
        According to a September 2012 USDA OIG report, the magnitude of
    program abuse due to recipient fraud is unknown because states do not
    have uniform ways of compiling the data that would provide such
    information.\20\ As a result, the USDA OIG recommended that FNS
    determine the feasibility of creating a uniform methodology for states
    to calculate their recipient fraud rate. FNS reported that it took
    action on this recommendation, but ultimately determined that it would
    be infeasible to implement as it would require legislative authority
    mandating significant state investment of time and resources in
    investigating, prosecuting and reporting fraud beyond current
    requirements.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ USDA OIG, Analysis of FNS' Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
    Program Fraud Prevention and Detection Efforts. Audit Report 27002-
    0011-13 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2012).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other Federal Programs for Low-Income Individuals
        We have reported that Medicaid, SSI, and the EITC, together with
    SNAP, comprise almost \2/3\ of Federal low-income obligations.\21\
    These programs for low-income individuals, along with SNAP, are
    included in the Federal Government's Payment Accuracy website list of
    programs with high improper payments reported to OMB.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ See GAO, Federal Low-Income Programs: Multiple Programs Target
    Diverse Populations and Needs, GAO-15-516 (http://www.gao.gov/products/
    GAO-15-516) (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2015).

       Medicaid is administered by the Department of Health and
            Human Services' (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
            (CMS) in partnership with the states, and it finances health
            insurance coverage for certain low-income individuals,
            children, and families. The Medicaid program also provides
            long-term care services and support to individuals who meet
            certain financial and functional criteria. HHS measures and
            reports Medicaid improper payments in three component areas:
            fee-for-service claims, managed care, and eligibility. For the
            purposes of this statement, we reviewed the eligibility
            component's improper payment rate.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ CMS recently proposed changes to the calculation of Medicaid
    improper payment rates. Medicaid/CHIP Program; Medicaid Program and
    Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP); Changes to the Medicaid
    Eligibility Quality Control and Payment Error Rate Measurement Programs
    in Response to the Affordable Care Act., 81 Fed. Reg. 40596 (proposed
    June 22, 2016). These proposed changes were outside the scope of our
    review.

       SSI, administered by the Social Security Administration
            (SSA), provides monthly cash assistance benefits to elderly
            individuals, as well as blind or disabled adults and children,
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            who have limited income and resources.

       EITC, administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
            provides a tax credit to low-income Americans who work and
            claim the EITC on their tax returns. Because the EITC is a
            refundable tax credit, the amount claimed by the taxpayer as a
            refund can exceed the taxpayer's income tax liability.
    States' Adoption of Program Flexibilities and Changes in Federal Policy
            Likely Affected Payment Errors
    States' Adoption of Certain Program Flexibilities Likely Reduced
            Payment Errors, Due in Part to Simplified Program Requirements
        The majority of state SNAP policy flexibilities allowed under
    Federal statutes and regulations, likely reduced payment errors by
    simplifying program requirements or modifying procedures, based on our
    review of these policies.\23\ For example, flexibilities that
    simplified program requirements allowed states to require less
    information from applicants and participants for eligibility and
    benefit determination, resulting in less processing for caseworkers and
    reduced opportunities for participants and caseworkers to make errors.
    State flexibilities that simplified program policies or procedures
    therefore may have contributed to decreases in the SNAP improper
    payment rate, though the rate was likely affected by additional factors
    as well, such as changes in the number of SNAP applicants and
    participants and state staffing levels.\24\ Further, the state
    flexibilities likely had other effects on the program, according to
    USDA officials, because states adopt flexibilities to better target
    benefits to those most in need, streamline program administration and
    operations, and coordinate SNAP with other programs. As shown in Figure
    2, of the 33 state flexibilities we reviewed, 17 likely reduced the
    potential for error.\25\ We previously reported that the anticipated
    effect on the state SNAP improper payment rate was a key factor in
    states' decisions to adopt certain policy options, such as those that
    simplified participant reporting requirements or eased the calculation
    of benefit amounts.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ To assess the expected effect of policy changes on the SNAP
    improper payment rate, we reviewed prior GAO work and FNS and OIG
    documents that describe the characteristics of policies that may affect
    the improper payment rate. We analyzed which Federal and state policy
    changes had these characteristics, and then we assessed the likely
    cumulative expected directional effect of each policy on the improper
    payment. We did not analyze Federal or state laws or regulations, and
    all descriptions and analysis of the various policy flexibilities are
    based on the documents and research we reviewed. See Appendix I for
    further information.
        \24\ For example, in our 2016 survey of the 50 states and the
    District of Columbia, several states mentioned that rising caseloads
    accompanied by decreased staffing increased payment error rates when
    asked what factors, aside from Federal or state policy changes, had
    affected their SNAP payment error rates in the last 5 years.
        \25\ These 22 options and 11 waivers come from USDA's most recent
    state options report (current as of September 2013) and USDA's SNAP
    Certification Policy Waiver Database (updated as of March 2016). We
    excluded options and waivers that had been adopted by fewer than five
    states at the time of our review; this meant that we excluded no
    options and 12 waivers. See Appendix I for more information on our
    analysis.
        \26\ See GAO, Food Stamp Program: Farm Bill Options Ease
    Administrative Burden, but Opportunities Exist to Streamline
    Participant Reporting Rules among Programs, GAO-04-916
    (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-916) (Washington, D.C.: September
    16, 2004).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 2: The Potential Effect of 33 State Flexibilities on the
            Likelihood of SNAP Payment Errors

              Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
            data on state options and waivers.DGAO-16-708T.
              Note: The 33 state flexibilities include 22 options in USDA's
            state options report (11th edition) and 11 waivers in USDA's
            waivers database (current as of March 2016) adopted by five or
            more states.

        Of the 17 flexibilities that potentially reduced the likelihood of
    SNAP payment errors, 11 simplified program requirements and six
    modified procedures for receiving and processing information.
    Figure 3: Analysis of 17 Flexibilities that Potentially Reduced the
            Likelihood of SNAP Payment Errors

              Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
            data on state options and waivers.DGAO-16-708T.

        The 11 flexibilities that simplified program requirements generally
    resulted in reduced opportunities for participants and caseworkers to
    make errors, and the effect of these flexibilities on the improper
    payment rate likely increased over time as greater numbers of states
    adopted some of them. Two of the eleven options we reviewed simplified
    participant reporting requirements, and six flexibilities simplified or
    standardized calculations used to determine household eligibility and
    benefit amounts, including self-employment income, medical and utility
    costs, income of those transitioning off TANF, and hours worked by
    college students. In addition, two flexibilities eliminated program
    requirements and another increased the alignment of SNAP program rules
    with other programs administered by states that serve a similar
    population.\27\ Over time, we found that increasing numbers of states
    adopted two policy options that have the potential to affect a large
    portion of the eligible population, thus potentially increasing their
    effect on the improper payment rate. Specifically, as of February 2003,
    25 states had adopted simplified reporting requirements for some or all
    eligible households and 16 states had adopted simplified utility
    calculations. However, by September of 2013, the numbers of states that
    had adopted these options increased to 53 and 47, respectively.\28\ See
    Table 1 for examples of flexibilities that simplified program
    requirements and our assessment of how they reduced the likelihood of
    error.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Many SNAP participants receive benefits from other Federal
    programs, such as Medicaid or TANF. In many states, SNAP is
    administered out of a local assistance office that offers benefits from
    these other assistance programs as well. SNAP participants may provide
    necessary information to only one caseworker who determines eligibility
    and benefits for all of these programs, or they may work with several
    caseworkers that administer benefits for different programs.
        \28\ The FNS state option reports include state agencies for all 50
    states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

       Table 1: Examples of the Flexibilities That Potentially Reduced the
          Likelihood of Errors by Simplifying SNAP Program Requirements
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Option/ Waiver           Description             GAO Assessment a
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Simplified Reporting  Requires participants    Results in participants
     option                to report only if        reporting fewer changes
                           their income rises       and reduces the amount
                           above 130 percent of     of paperwork that
                           the Federal poverty      caseworkers must
                           guidelines, instead of   process.b In 2005, USDA
                           requiring a variety of   estimated that
                           changes to be            simplified reporting
                           reported, including      reduced the improper
                           household composition,   payment rate by 1.2 to
                           income, and expenses.    1.5 percentage points.c
    Simplified Income     Excludes certain types   Increases uniformity in
     and Resources         of income and            requirements across
     option                resources from SNAP      several programs for low-
                           eligibility and          income individuals,
                           benefit determination    which SNAP recipients
                           requirements that are    may simultaneously
                           excluded under state     receive and which are
                           TANF or Medicaid         administered by the same
                           policy.                  caseworkers in some
                                                    states. Therefore, this
                                                    reduces program
                                                    complexity and the
                                                    potential for confusion
                                                    by participants and
                                                    caseworkers.
    Standard Medical      Establishes a standard   Eliminates the need for
     Deduction waiver      medical deduction in     participants to provide
                           lieu of calculating      proof of all medical
                           actual medical           expenses and streamlines
                           expenses for             eligibility and benefit
                           individuals who are      determination procedures
                           disabled or elderly.     for caseworkers by
                                                    reducing the amount of
                                                    information to be
                                                    verified and documented.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis of information in USDA's 2013 State Options report,
      USDA's SNAP Certification Policy Waiver Database (updated as of March
      2016), and other FNS documents.DGAO-16-708T
    a Flexibilities may have had multiple characteristics that suggested
      opposite effects; in those instances we selected what we considered to
      be the over-riding or primary effect.
    b Whether the caseworker needs to process a change, which the caseworker
      comes to know about but that the participant was not required to
      report, depends on whether the state has a policy to act on all
      changes.
    c U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, The Effect
      of Simplified Reporting on Food Stamp Payment Accuracy, October 2005.

        Instead of simplifying program requirements, six state policy
    options and waivers we reviewed allowed for modified procedures for
    receiving and processing information that likely reduced SNAP payment
    errors. For example, an option that allowed states to use online SNAP
    applications likely made information easier to document, retrieve, and
    process, thereby reducing opportunities for caseworker error. Another
    option that enabled states to set up call centers likely helped
    participants report changes more easily, potentially contributing to
    fewer unreported changes. However, questions have been raised about the
    effect of these approaches.29-30 Further, two waivers
    provided states with procedural flexibilities intended to reduce the
    likelihood of participants having their case closed because of a delay
    in submitting paperwork and then having to re-apply.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Diminished face-to-face contact may increase the potential for
    recipient fraud, potentially increasing errors and negatively affecting
    program integrity.
        \30\ In a recently finalized rule, FNS identified changes in
    operation that potentially increase the difficulty of households
    reporting required information (which could include implementation of a
    SNAP call center or online change reporting) as major changes in the
    operation of a SNAP program and has required that such changes be
    evaluated to assess the impact of the changes on the payment error
    rate, among other things. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program:
    Review of Major Changes in Program Design and Management Evaluation
    Systems, 81 Fed. Reg. 2725 (Jan. 19, 2016).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While our analysis suggests that the majority of state policy
    flexibilities potentially reduced the likelihood of errors, three of
    the 33 flexibilities we reviewed likely increased it, and the remaining
    13 likely had a mixed or minimal to no effect.

       The three options that we assessed as having potentially
            increased the likelihood of payment errors increased the number
            of calculations caseworkers needed to do or added a step to the
            eligibility determination process. For example, two options
            increased the conditions for which a participant could be
            disqualified, such as for lack of cooperation with a child
            support enforcement agency. This added a step for staff to
            determine whether an applicant or participant met these
            conditions, thereby increasing the opportunity for error.\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Note that cases that were incorrectly terminated would be
    considered in the rate for improper denials, suspensions, and
    terminations. The active case improper payment rate, which is the focus
    of this report, would have been affected by instances where the
    household should have been disqualified but was mistakenly allowed to
    remain on the program.

       Four options had characteristics that we assessed as having
            the potential to both increase and decrease the likelihood of
            payment errors. For example, the BBCE state option may have
            decreased improper payment rates in states that adopted it and,
            in effect, eliminated SNAP asset limits, as determining
            household assets can be a cause of error. In these states,
            participants no longer needed to provide documentation of
            assets, and caseworkers no longer needed to verify these
            amounts. At the same time, as we previously reported, because
            BBCE allowed some states to, in effect, increase the SNAP gross
            income limit, the policy may have resulted in greater numbers
            of households with earned income participating in SNAP.\32\
            According to USDA's data on causes of error, determining
            household income is the most common cause of error when
            determining benefit amounts. Seven states had BBCE policies in
            Fiscal Year 2006, versus 42 states in Fiscal Year 2015. Thus
            the impact of this option on payment errors may have increased
            over the last 10 years, although the overall direction of this
            option's effect on the improper payment rate is unclear.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Improved
    Oversight of State Eligibility Expansions Needed, GAO 12-670,
    (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2012).

       The nine options and waivers that we assessed as not having
            affected the likelihood of payment errors changed SNAP
            eligibility or administrative procedures without introducing
            significant simplification or complexity. For example, one
            option allowed states to count child support payments as an
            income exclusion rather than a deduction when determining the
            payer's eligibility and benefits. While this option changed the
            eligibility determination process, the applicant needed to
            provide the same information, and the caseworker needed to
            process it. Another example is a waiver that allowed states to
            issue electronic notices to clients who elect to receive
            notices via e-mail rather than paper mail.
    Federal Policy Changes That Likely Affected the Improper Payment Rate
            Changed Which Errors Are Counted as Improper Payments
        While there were many Federal SNAP policy changes in the last 10
    years, we found that few likely affected improper payment rates, based
    on our analysis of FNS documents. Those that likely did (1) made
    changes to the dollar threshold below which an error is excluded from
    the improper payment rate calculation, (2) excluded certain income and
    resources for eligibility and benefit determination purposes, and (3)
    required certain types of data matching.

       Federal policy changes in the SNAP error tolerance
            threshold, or the dollar threshold below which an error is
            excluded from the SNAP error rate calculation, likely had a
            direct effect on the error rate.\33\ During the last 10 years,
            the threshold has been changed several times through Federal
            statute and regulations, and FNS attributed the 2014 increase
            in the SNAP error rate to a decrease in the error tolerance
            threshold from $50 to $37.\34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ For example, when the error tolerance threshold was $50 for
    part of Fiscal Year 2009 and from Fiscal Year 2012 to Fiscal Year 2013,
    a household that received a monthly benefit amount found to be $40 in
    error was not counted as an error when calculating the error rate.
    However, in Fiscal Year 2014, when the error tolerance threshold was
    $37, a $40 error was counted as an error when calculating the error
    rate.
        \34\ FNS has also previously linked these two factors. FNS
    estimated that the increase in the threshold from $25 to $50 for 6
    months in Fiscal Year 2009, decreased the error rate for that year by
    15 percent. However, error tolerance threshold changes do not always
    track with the overall error rate changes, likely because there are
    many factors affecting error rates simultaneously.

       Some Federal policy changes that resulted in fewer sources
            of income and resources being considered during the eligibility
            and benefit determination process may have also affected the
            likelihood of errors. These changes reduced participant
            reporting requirements and caseworker verification
            requirements, but they also may have increased confusion
            regarding what sources of income and resources to report.\35\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ For example, in 2009, legislation was enacted requiring that
    additional unemployment compensation payments should be excluded from
    consideration as income and resources for purposes of SNAP eligibility
    and benefit determination. However, because only the supplemental $25
    unemployment compensation payment (and not the regular unemployment
    compensation payment) was excluded, this supplemental payment needed to
    be separated from other unemployment compensation received when
    calculating income for SNAP, potentially increasing confusion and
    opportunities for error.

       A Federal policy change that increased requirements for data
            matching may have reduced the likelihood of errors by improving
            the accuracy of eligibility and benefit determination, but the
            quality and timeliness of the data may have mitigated that
            effect, according to our analysis and prior work.\36\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ For example, in 2012, FNS began requiring states to conduct a
    data match to check whether a person applying in one state was
    disqualified in another state, so that the receiving state could impose
    appropriate penalties. The required match would help ensure that
    clients who are supposed to be disqualified for a certain period or
    permanently are not granted benefits, reducing opportunities for
    improper payments. However, we reported in 2014 that the quality and
    timeliness of the data were impeding the effectiveness of this data
    match, thereby mitigating the effect of this policy change on the
    improper payment rate. See GAO-14-641 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-
    14-641).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SNAP's Improper Payment Rate Calculation Methodology Is Similar to
            Those of Medicaid, EITC, and SSI, Although Some Differences May
            Affect the Resulting Rates
        SNAP and other large Federal programs for low-income individuals,
    such as Medicaid, EITC, and SSI, report improper payment rates, as
    shown in Table 2. There are some similarities to how these improper
    payment rates are calculated by the agencies overseeing these programs,
    though there are also certain differences in these programs' improper
    payment rate calculations that may affect the resulting rates.\37\
    However, the extent of the effect of these differences on the programs'
    rate is unknown, in part because, as previously noted, programs' rates
    are likely affected by many additional factors, such as changes in
    numbers of applicants and participants, staffing, and program policy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ Although we selected EITC, Medicaid, and SSI to compare to
    SNAP, other Federal programs that provide benefits to low-income
    individuals have still different approaches to estimating their
    improper payments. For example, other USDA programs, such as the
    National School Lunch program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition
    Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), rely on periodic
    nationally representative studies to produce improper payment rate
    estimates.

     Table 2: Estimated Improper Payment Rates Reported in Fiscal Year 2015
           Agency Financial Reports for SNAP, Medicaid, EITC, and SSI
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Program                       Improper Payment Rates
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program                           3.7%
     (SNAP)
    Medicaid (eligibility component)                                  a 3.1%
    Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) b                                  23.8%
    Supplemental Security Income (SSI)                                  8.5%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Relevant Federal agencies.DGAO-16-708T.
    Note: SNAP and SSI rates are reported at a 95 percent confidence level
      and EITC and Medicaid rates are reported at 90 percent confidence
      levels and all estimates are reported within plus or minus 2.5
      percentage points. Improper payment rates reported in the Fiscal Year
      2015 agency financial reports may pertain to a different period in
      which benefits were paid, for example the SNAP improper payment rate
      is for benefits paid in Fiscal Year 2014.
    a The overall Medicaid improper payment rate was 9.8 percent, which
      combines component improper payment rates for eligibility, fee-for-
      service, and managed care.
    b For EITC, this accounts for improper payments net of erroneous
      payments recovered.

    SNAP's Improper Payment Rate Calculation, Including How Cases are
            Chosen for Review, is Similar to Other Selected Programs
        The methodology that SNAP uses to calculate its improper payment
    rate is generally similar to the methodologies used for other large
    Federal programs for low-income individuals, specifically Medicaid,\38\
    EITC, and SSI. The Federal agencies overseeing each of these programs
    provide guidance on improper payment rate calculation to those
    administering the program--state officials for SNAP and Medicaid, and
    Federal officials for EITC and SSI. To calculate their improper payment
    rates, all four programs use similar sampling methods, draw samples
    generally representative of their recipients, and report their improper
    payment rates at similar levels of precision. (See Table 3.) For
    example, each program employs a probability sampling methodology, based
    on a form of random selection, to select which cases they will review
    to determine the improper payment rate. Further, the programs generally
    draw samples from all individuals receiving program benefits. We also
    found that all four programs estimate their improper payment rates with
    high levels of precision.\39\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ We previously reviewed the methodology for estimating a
    national improper payment rate for Medicaid and found it to be
    statistically sound. See, GAO, Medicaid: Enhancements Needed for
    Improper Payments Reporting and Related Corrective Action Monitoring,
    GAO-13-229 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-229) (Washington, D.C.:
    March 29, 2013).
        \39\ In its improper payments guidance, the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) recommends that agencies report improper payment rates
    at 90 percent confidence interval of plus or minus 2.5 percent or 95
    percent confidence interval of plus or minus three percent.

         Table 3: SNAP, Medicaid, EITC, and SSI Employ Similar Sampling
       Methodology Factors For Their Reviews to Determine Improper Payment
                                      Rates
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Sampling Methodology Factors              Approach Employed
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Statistical Method                     Probability sampling
    Sample Selection                       Stratifies or allows for
                                            stratification
    Sample Representation                  All recipients in active cases
                                            generally represented
    Estimate Precision                     Reports estimates at high levels
                                            of precision
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis.DGAO-16-708T

    Several Differences among the Selected Programs, Including How Cases
            Are Factored into the Improper Payment Rate Calculation, Likely
            Affect the Resulting Improper Payment Rates
        We found differences between SNAP and Medicaid, EITC, and SSI in
    how reviews are conducted to determine improper payments and how cases
    are factored into the improper payment rate calculation. Some of the
    procedural and methodological differences in the improper payment rate
    calculation among these programs likely affect the resulting improper
    payment rates.
    How Case Reviews Are Conducted
        There are some differences between how reviews are conducted to
    determine improper payments in SNAP and the three other Federal
    programs for low-income individuals we reviewed, such as the reporting
    time frame, Federal or state involvement in the review, and the extent
    of the review. (See Table 4.)

     Table 4: Key Aspects of How Reviews Are Conducted to Determine Improper
        Payments in SNAP and Select Other Federal Programs for Low-Income
                      Individuals (EITC, Medicaid, and SSI)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Time frame of
                        improper  payments                      Extent of
         Program        reported in agency   Review levels        review
                        financial reports
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Supplemental       Benefits that were   Two levels of    Contact the
     Nutrition          paid in the prior    review (state    recipient
     Assistance         year.                & Federal)
     Program (SNAP)
    Medicaid           Benefits paid in     State review     Rely on case
                        the prior 3 years;   only             file, but
                        reviewing benefits                    permitted to
                        paid in \1/3\ of                      contact the
                        states each year.                     recipient
    Earned Income Tax  Credits allowed in   Federal review   Contact the
     Credit (EITC)      the tax year 4       only             recipient
                        years prior.a
    Supplemental       Benefits that were   Federal review   Contact the
     Security Income    paid in the prior    only b           recipient
     (SSI)              year.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis.DGAO-16-708T.
    a The EITC improper payment rate is determined from previously reviewed
      returns from the most recent year from which compliance information is
      available and that rate is used for the current year. For the improper
      payment dollar amount, the improper payment rate is multiplied by the
      amount of EITC claims in the current year, less the amount of revenue
      recovered or protected.
    b According to SSA officials, the initial Federal SSI case reviews are
      subject to a secondary SSI review to ensure consistency. For the
      second review, five percent of cases initially reviewed are randomly
      selected, as well as all cases with payment errors.

        SNAP, Medicaid, EITC, and SSI differ in the time frames relied on
    to determine improper payment rate estimates reported in the same year.
    Specifically, SNAP and SSI report each year's improper payment rate
    based on reviews of benefits paid in the prior year, whereas Medicaid
    relies on multiple years of data and EITC uses older prior year data.
    For example, SNAP and SSI improper payment rates reported in their
    Fiscal Year 2015 agency financial reports were for reviews of benefits
    that were paid in Fiscal Year 2014. In contrast, Medicaid's annual
    improper payment rate stems from a 3 year rolling rate of state
    estimates. Each year, \1/3\ of the states produce an improper payment
    rate estimate for Medicaid; and thus, the nationwide fiscal year
    improper payment rate reported in the Fiscal Year 2015 agency financial
    report included reviews of benefit payments in Fiscal Years 2012, 2013,
    and 2014. EITC estimates the amount of improper payments in a current
    year, using an improper payment rate based on reviews done for tax
    returns filed 4 years prior. For example, the EITC improper payment
    rate of 23.8 percent, reported in the Department of Treasury Fiscal
    Year 2015 agency financial report is from the review of 2011 tax
    returns.
        The programs we reviewed also differed in the levels of government
    involved in the case reviews, as well as whether a secondary review is
    conducted for verification. Although they are both state-administered,
    SNAP and Medicaid differ in that both state and Federal officials
    review cases for SNAP, but according to Department of Health and Human
    Services (HHS) officials, states alone review cases for Medicaid.
    Specifically, for SNAP, Federal officials review a subsample of cases
    to verify the accuracy of state reviews, and if differences are found,
    the state's improper payment rate is adjusted. According to Federal
    officials, states are not involved in SSI and EITC reviews because
    these programs are federally-administered. However, according to SSA,
    there is a secondary review of SSI cases for consistency at the Federal
    level,\40\ while according to IRS, for EITC there is no systematic
    secondary review. When the SSI consistency review finding differs from
    the initial review finding, the case payment amount is adjusted and
    included in the improper payment rate computation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ According to SSA officials, the SSI consistency reviews are
    done on five percent of reviewed cases, selected at random, as well as
    all cases with payment errors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The extent to which officials review information beyond what is in
    the recipient's case file also differs between the programs we
    selected, such as with Medicaid, which may affect improper payment
    rates. For example, SNAP reviewers must contact recipients to obtain
    information to independently determine eligibility and benefit amounts,
    while according to HHS officials, Medicaid reviews can be conducted
    from information solely in the case file. While this can result in SNAP
    reviewers finding additional information not included in the case file
    that was necessary to determine whether the benefit amount was correct,
    it can also result in reviewers not being able to complete the review
    if they cannot make contact with the recipient. Like SNAP, the SSI and
    EITC reviewers also generally contact recipients.\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ EITC reviewers check the accuracy of the taxpayer's
    eligibility and the amount claimed on tax returns and not the accuracy
    of a determination made by a caseworker from a client's application.
    Tax credit recipients self-certify their eligibility and claim and do
    not need to meet with caseworkers, nor submit up-front documentation as
    is required with other programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cases Factored into the Improper Payment Rate Calculation
        Differences in how cases are factored into the improper payment
    rate calculation also exist among SNAP and the other Federal programs
    for low-income individuals we reviewed, which likely affect the
    resulting improper payment rates. These differences relate to how cases
    with insufficient information and those found to have certain kinds of
    errors are factored into the improper payment rate.\42\ (See Table 5.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ Another difference across the four programs relates to
    adjustments that are made to the improper payment rate to account for
    improper payments that are recovered from the recipient by the Federal
    agency. Unlike SNAP, Medicaid, and SSI, the EITC includes recovered
    over-claims in its rate calculation, according to Federal officials. If
    IRS reviews of EITC cases, for which the credit has already been paid,
    determine that IRS should reduce or deny the EITC claim, the IRS must
    recover the amount that was previously paid. The amount of such over-
    claims that are recovered is subtracted from the amount of the over-
    claims determined by a reviewer, reducing the amount of improper
    payment used in computing the error rate.

    Table 5: Key Aspects of How Cases Are Factored into the Improper Payment
      Rate Calculation for SNAP and Select Other Federal Programs for Low-
                  Income Individuals (Medicaid, EITC, and SSI)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Treatment of cases for   Errors excluded from the
           Program         which review cannot be     improper payment rate
                                 completed a               calculation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Supplemental          Dropped from sample, but  Case errors below $37
     Nutrition             an adjustment is made     (in Fiscal Year 2014) c
     Assistance Program                             Errors caused by a
     (SNAP)                                          policy change in the
                                                     120 days after
                                                     implementation
    Medicaid              Full benefit amount       None
                           counted as error
    Earned Income Tax     If taxpayer does not      None
     Credit (EITC)         respond, remains in
                           sample, but an
                           adjustment is made.b
                          If taxpayer responds,
                           but is unable to
                           provide documentation,
                           the full benefit amount
                           is counted as error.
    Supplemental          Dropped from sample.      Errors caused by a
     Security Income                                 policy change in the 6
     (SSI)                                           months after
                                                     implementation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis.DGAO-16-708T.
    a A case review cannot be completed when an agency's review is unable to
      discern whether a payment was proper because of insufficient or lack
      of documentation.
    b According to IRS officials, such cases are considered non-response
      cases and an adjustment is made to the improper payment rate
      calculation assuming that such cases have the same ratio of compliance
      to non-compliance characteristics as taxpayers who participate in the
      audits.
    c SNAP has an error reporting threshold, which is the dollar amount
      beneath which a case error is not included in the error rate.

        For some cases, the reviewer may have insufficient information to
    assess the accuracy of the eligibility and benefit determination, and
    the programs we reviewed treated these cases somewhat differently in
    the improper payment rate calculation. For example, according to FNS
    officials, for SNAP, these cases are removed from the sample so that
    neither the benefit payments or any potential dollar error amounts are
    factored into the improper payment rate calculation, though the rate
    calculation may be adjusted depending on the proportion of reviewed
    cases in this category.\43\ According to SSA, such cases are removed
    from the SSI improper payment rate calculation, and no adjustment is
    made to the improper payment rate. In contrast, according to HHS
    officials, in Medicaid cases where there is insufficient information to
    make an error determination, the full benefit amount is counted as an
    error in the improper payment rate calculation. EITC policy on
    incomplete cases varies depending on whether contact is made with the
    taxpayer. Specifically, if the taxpayer responds to the audit inquiry,
    but is unable to provide the required documentation, the full amount of
    the credit is considered to be in error. However, according to IRS
    officials, if the taxpayer cannot be reached to participate in the
    audit, the case is not completed, and an adjustment is made to the
    improper payment rate calculation.\44\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ Under Federal regulations, FNS makes an adjustment to a
    state's error rate if more than two percent of the state's cases
    selected for review could not be completed, such as when the reviewer
    could not contact a recipient or the household refused to cooperate.
    See 7 CFR  275.23(b)(2)(iii).
        \44\ According to IRS officials, such cases are considered non-
    response cases and an adjustment is made to the improper payment rate
    calculation assuming that such cases have the same ratio of compliance
    to non-compliance characteristics as taxpayers who participate in the
    audits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Generally, unlike the other Federal programs for low-income
    individuals we reviewed, SNAP excludes certain errors from its improper
    payment rate calculation. For example, as previously noted, SNAP
    excludes errors below a specific dollar threshold from its error rate
    calculation, while according to Federal officials, the other programs
    we selected did not exclude identified errors below a specific dollar
    threshold.\45\ FNS's data on payment errors suggests that the threshold
    has a direct effect on the SNAP error rate. Specifically, in our
    analysis of FNS's quality control data for Fiscal Year 2013, we found
    that 31 percent of all cases reviewed had errors that were below the
    threshold, six percent had errors that exceeded the threshold, and 64
    percent had no errors.\46\ Further, the reviewed cases determined to
    have errors below the threshold--which were not included as errors in
    the error rate calculation--accounted for 38 percent of all SNAP
    dollars paid in error. In addition, for SNAP, errors are not included
    in the rate calculation if they are related to recent program changes;
    within 120 days.\47\ Similarly, according to SSA officials, such errors
    are not included in the SSI rate calculation if they are found to have
    occurred within 6 months of a change.\48\ According to Federal
    officials, neither Medicaid nor EITC has such a provision.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ As previously noted, the Fiscal Year 2014 threshold below
    which SNAP improper payments were not included in the error rate, based
    on SNAP law, was $37.
        \46\ Percentages exceed 100 percent due to rounding.
        \47\ Under SNAP, errors resulting from the application of new SNAP
    regulations or implementing memorandum of changes in Federal law are
    generally to be excluded from the error rate if they are within 120
    days of the required implementation date. See 7 U.S.C.  2025(c)(3)(a)
    and 7 CFR  275.12(d)(2)(vii).
        \48\ According to SSA officials, errors caused by significant
    program changes are not included in the SSI rate calculation if they
    are found to have occurred within 6 months of the change; however, they
    stated that there have not been significant changes that would invoke
    this provision since 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another difference between SNAP and the other programs we reviewed
    relates to bonuses to reduce error rates. Specifically, SNAP provides
    states with financial bonuses and sanctions to reduce or maintain low
    error rates, a policy which differs from Medicaid, EITC, and SSI.\49\
    For Fiscal Year 2014 state improper payments, FNS selected ten states
    to share $24 million in bonuses for best payment accuracy and most
    improved payment accuracy.\50\ This policy differs from the other
    programs we reviewed likely due, in part, to differences in program
    structure. For example, according to Medicaid Federal officials, states
    have an inherent incentive to reduce Medicaid improper payments because
    they share in Medicaid program costs. Further, given that SSI and EITC
    are federally administered programs, they have no state-based
    incentives.\51\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \49\ See 7 U.S.C.  2025 and 7 CFR  275.23-275.24.
        \50\ In a June 24, 2016 letter to states, USDA said that it will
    complete a thorough review of quality control systems in all states
    before making decisions about the disbursement of the payment accuracy
    bonuses. These payments had not been made, because of FNS concerns
    about the integrity of the state data, based on FNS reviews. The USDA
    OIG had previously found that states had used practices to weaken the
    quality control review process, including the use of third-party
    consultants and error review committees to mitigate individual errors
    identified by reviewers. See, USDA, Office of Inspector General, FNS
    Quality Control Process for SNAP Error Rate, Audit Report 27601-0002-
    41, September 2015.
        \51\ However, according to SSA officials, the agency uses its
    annual performance appraisals to hold SSI managers, supervisors, and
    field office employees accountable for reducing improper payments.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Despite differences among some Federal programs' improper payment
    rate calculations, Federal agencies are generally required to comply
    with relevant Federal laws governing the estimation of improper payment
    rates. We are currently assessing the SNAP improper payment rate
    calculation in light of these laws and the relevant OMB implementing
    guidance and plan to report on these findings in the future.
    States and FNS Have Taken Steps To Address SNAP Recipient Fraud That
            May Help Address Identified Challenges
        Fraud is a key indicator of program integrity and FNS and state
    agencies partner to address it. As previously noted, improper payments
    made to SNAP households may be caused by caseworker or recipient
    errors, and intentional errors made by recipients are considered fraud,
    as are other recipient and retailer actions that qualify as misuse of
    benefits. FNS and the states work together to address SNAP recipient
    fraud, employing various tools that are specifically targeted at
    detecting recipient fraud. These tools have evolved over time with
    changes to the SNAP program and the ways in which SNAP recipient fraud
    occur.
        In 2014, we reported that selected states said they employed a
    range of tools to detect potential SNAP recipient eligibility fraud,
    such as data matching and referrals obtained through fraud reporting
    hotlines and websites.\52\ Specifically, at that time, all 11 states
    that we reviewed had fraud hotlines or websites, and all matched
    information about SNAP applicants and recipients against various data
    sources to detect those potentially improperly receiving benefits, as
    FNS recommended or required. For example, all 11 states reported
    matching recipient data against prisoner and death files. In addition,
    we found that four of the states we reviewed used additional
    specialized searches to check numerous public and private data sources,
    including school enrollment, vehicle registration, vital statistics,
    and credit reports, to detect potential fraud prior to providing
    benefits to potential recipients.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \52\ See GAO-14-641 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-641).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To address recipient trafficking of benefits--the exchange of
    benefits for cash or non-food goods or services, in 2014, officials in
    the 11 selected states reported that they took various actions
    recommended or required by FNS. For example, all 11 states reported
    tracking recipients who requested four or more replacement electronic
    benefit transfer (EBT) cards in a 12 month period. States issue an
    eligible household's monthly SNAP benefits on an EBT card, and
    recipients use the cards to purchase allowable food items at authorized
    retailers. FNS has required that states track recipients who request
    multiple EBT replacement cards because some recipients who have
    trafficked their benefits contact state agencies to report their sold
    cards as lost or stolen and receive new, replacement cards, which they
    then use for future transactions. For recipients identified through
    such tracking, states generally must warn them that the purchases they
    are making with their SNAP benefits through their EBT transactions, are
    being monitored. All 11 states also reported reviewing EBT transactions
    in an attempt to uncover patterns that may indicate trafficking, as
    recommended by FNS, though these efforts varied by state. For example,
    while Florida officials reported that they routinely review EBT
    transaction data for suspicious patterns, Texas officials reported that
    they only review transactions for individuals or households after they
    have been referred to them because of potential fraud. Further, eight
    of the 11 states reported using either automated tools or manual
    monitoring to detect postings on social media and e-commerce websites
    by individuals seeking to sell SNAP benefits, as recommended by FNS.
        However, we also reported in 2014 that these states noted that
    inadequate staffing levels limited the effectiveness of their actions
    to detect recipient fraud, though some states were exploring ways to
    address this issue. Among the 11 selected states, there was wide
    variation in the number of staff available to investigate potential
    SNAP recipient fraud, and investigators each had additional
    responsibilities unrelated to SNAP fraud investigations. Further, eight
    of the 11 selected states reported difficulties in conducting fraud
    investigations due to either reduced or maintained staff levels, while
    SNAP recipient numbers greatly increased from Fiscal Year 2009 through
    2013. To help address this issue, six of the states reported that they
    had implemented or were in the process of implementing state law
    enforcement bureau (SLEB) agreements at the time of our 2014 report.
    These agreements enable state SNAP investigators to cooperate in
    various ways with local, state, and Federal law enforcement agents,
    including those within the USDA OIG. For example, under these
    agreements, law enforcement agencies can notify the SNAP fraud unit
    when they arrest someone who possesses multiple EBT cards, and SNAP
    agencies can provide ``dummy'' EBT cards for state and local officers
    to use in undercover trafficking investigations. Some states also
    suggested changing the financial incentive structure to promote fraud
    investigations. To help address the increased caseloads and the
    resources needed to conduct investigations, we recommended that USDA
    explore ways that Federal financial incentives could be used to better
    support cost-effective anti-fraud strategies. At this time, FNS has
    decided not to pursue bonus awards for anti-fraud and program integrity
    activities.
        Also in 2014, some states reported that limitations of FNS's
    required approach to monitoring replacement card data also challenged
    their efforts to combat recipient fraud. Specifically, at the time of
    our review, four states reported that they had not initiated any
    trafficking investigations as a result of the EBT replacement card data
    monitoring required by FNS, and five states reported a low success rate
    for such investigations. Through our own analysis of replacement card
    data combined with EBT transaction data that suggested trafficking, we
    found indicators of potential SNAP trafficking in households with
    excessive replacement cards, suggesting that a more targeted approach
    than that required by FNS may improve states' efforts to identify
    recipient trafficking. As a result of these findings in 2014, we
    recommended that FNS establish additional guidance to help states
    analyze SNAP transaction data to better identify SNAP recipient
    households receiving replacement cards that are potentially engaging in
    trafficking, and assess how to better focus this analysis on high-risk
    households potentially engaged in trafficking. In response, FNS
    officials reported that they have provided some states with technical
    assistance on how to effectively utilize replacement card data as a
    potential indicator of trafficking and have plans to expand their
    assistance to states in this area. Specifically, FNS has worked with
    seven states to help them more effectively identify SNAP recipient
    trafficking using models that incorporate predictive analytics. FNS
    officials stated that the models use a variety of eligibility and
    transaction data, including replacement card data, and have
    demonstrated a significant improvement in effectiveness in these
    states. FNS officials also stated that they are providing four
    additional states with technical assistance in Fiscal Year 2016, and
    FNS is currently conducting a training program for state staff to teach
    them how to build predictive models that incorporate the use of card
    replacement data.
        Further, although an FNS-recommended automated tool for monitoring
    potential SNAP trafficking on e-commerce websites was intended to
    replace the need for states to perform manual searches on these
    websites, we found the tool to be of limited use. Specifically, our
    testing found that manual searches returned more postings indicative of
    potential SNAP trafficking than the automated tool, and that most of
    the postings detected through manual searches were not detected by the
    automated tool. As a result, in 2014 we recommended that FNS reassess
    the effectiveness of the current guidance and tools recommended to
    states for monitoring e-commerce and social media websites, FNS
    officials reported that they continue to provide technical assistance
    to states on the effective use of social media and e-commerce
    monitoring. FNS officials also reported that the agency conducted an
    analysis in 2016 to evaluate states' current use of social media in
    their detection of SNAP trafficking, and they plan to use information
    from that analysis to determine how best to present further guidance to
    state agencies on using social media to combat trafficking.
        In 2014, we also found that FNS had increased its oversight of
    state anti-fraud activities by issuing new regulations and guidance,
    conducting state audits, and commissioning studies on recipient fraud
    since Fiscal Year 2011.\53\ Despite these efforts, we found that FNS
    did not have consistent and reliable data on states' anti-fraud
    activities because its reporting guidance lacked specificity. For
    example, FNS's guidance did not define the kinds of activities that
    should be counted as investigations, resulting in data that were not
    comparable across states. This limited USDA's ability to monitor states
    and find more effective ways to combat recipient fraud. To improve
    FNS's ability to monitor states and obtain information about more
    efficient and effective ways to combat recipient fraud, we recommended
    in 2014 that FNS take steps, such as guidance and training, to enhance
    the consistency of what states report on their anti-fraud activities.
    As of May 2016, FNS reported that it had redesigned the form used to
    collect consistent recipient integrity performance information and
    expect it to be implemented in Fiscal Year 2017, pending approval from
    OMB.\54\ FNS also published an interim final rule on January 26, 2016
    (effective March 28, 2016) that increased the frequency with which
    states are required to submit the form to FNS from annually to
    quarterly.\55\ As of June 2016, FNS officials reported that they had
    provided four separate trainings to approximately 400 state agency and
    FNS regional office personnel, covering the new and modified elements
    of the final draft form and the corresponding instructions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \53\ See GAO-14-641 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-641).
        \54\ See GAO-16-719T (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-719T).
        \55\ SNAP Requirement for National Directory of New Hires
    Employment Verification and Annual Program Activity Reporting, 81 Fed.
    Reg. 4159.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
    Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
    respond to any questions you may have at this time.
    GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
        For questions about this statement please contact Kay E. Brown at
    (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
    Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
    page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this
    testimony include Rachel Frisk, Alexander Galuten, Kathryn O'Dea Lamas,
    Jean McSween, Daniel Meyer, and Srinidhi Vijaykumar.
    Appendix I: GAO Analysis of the Effect of State Policy Flexibilities on
                              SNAP Payment Errors
        We used a multi-step approach to assess the expected effect of each
    of the 33 state policy flexibilities we identified on the SNAP improper
    payment rate.\1\ First, we reviewed prior GAO work, and FNS and USDA
    Office of Inspector General (OIG) documents, that describe the
    characteristics of policies that may affect the SNAP improper payment
    rate. See Table 6 for a description of the policy characteristics we
    identified and the expected effect of those characteristics on the
    likelihood of errors. We then obtained a description of each state
    policy flexibility using the 2013 USDA State Options report, the 2016
    USDA waivers database, and other FNS documents.\2\ We analyzed which
    Federal and state policy changes had the identified characteristics,
    and then we assessed the likely cumulative expected directional effect
    of each policy on the improper payment rate, depending on whether the
    policy change simplified or complicated program rules or increased or
    decreased caseworker paperwork, among other characteristics. For
    flexibilities that had multiple characteristics with potentially
    opposite effects on the likelihood of errors, we selected what we
    considered to be the primary effect, based on a review by two analysts.
    However, for some policies, we were unable to determine the primary
    effect and therefore categorized those policies as having a mixed
    effect--essentially, these policies had characteristics that suggested
    they both increased and decreased the likelihood of errors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ These 22 options and 11 waivers come from USDA's most recent
    state options report (current as of September 2013) and USDA's waivers
    database (current as of March 2016). We excluded options and waivers
    that had been adopted by fewer than five states at the time of our
    review; this meant that we excluded no options and 12 waivers.
        \2\ In conducting this analysis, we did not analyze Federal or
    state laws or regulations, and all descriptions and analysis of the
    various policy flexibilities are based on the documents and research we
    reviewed.

     Table 6: Characteristics of State Policy Flexibilities GAO Examined and
       How They Might Potentially Affect Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
                          Program (SNAP) Payment Errors
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Effect on Likelihood of
            Factor               Characteristic               Errors
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Program rules                 Simplify
                                   Complicate
    Requirements for                         Less
         participants                    More
          to provide
          information
    Caseworker paperwork                     Less
                                         More
    Characteristics of                       Less error-prone
       eligible popu-        More error-prone
              lation
     Others, such as                 Simplify
       program admin-              Complicate
        istration or
           procedures
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO.DGAO-16-708T
    Note: We did not review program laws and regulations, but we identified
      when descriptions of flexibilities addressed similarities across
      programs. Greater similarity in program rules decreases household and
      caseworker confusion, as caseworkers may be responsible for
      determining eligibility for multiple programs.

        We grouped the 33 state policy flexibilities into four categories,
    those that: potentially reduced the likelihood of errors; potentially
    increased the likelihood of errors; likely had a mixed effect; or
    likely had no effect. Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10 divide the policy
    flexibilities into these categories, describe each, and provide our
    assessment of each flexibility's likely effect on errors.

       Table 7: Seventeen Options and Waivers That Potentially Reduce the
     Likelihood of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Payment
                                     Errors
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Option/ Waiver           Description               Explanation a
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flexibilities that simplified program requirements
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Simplified           Requires participants to   Results in participants
     Reporting option     report only if their       reporting fewer changes
                          income rises above 130     and reduces the amount
                          percent of the Federal     of paperwork that
                          poverty guidelines,        caseworkers must
                          instead of requiring a     process.b In 2005, USDA
                          variety of changes to be   estimated that
                          reported, including        simplified reporting
                          household composition,     could have reduced the
                          income, and expenses.      improper payment rate
                                                     by 1.2 to 1.5
                                                     percentage points.c
    Simplified           Requires participants to   Results in participants
     Reporting--Certifi   submit a periodic report   reporting changes less
     cation Length        with household             frequently and reduces
     option               information at set         the amount of paperwork
                          intervals instead of       that caseworkers must
                          requiring changes be       process.
                          reported within 10 days
                          of their occurrence.
    Simplified Income    Excludes certain types of  Increases uniformity in
     and Resources        income and resources       requirements across
     option               from SNAP eligibility      multiple programs for
                          and benefit                low-income individuals,
                          determination              which SNAP recipients
                          requirements that are      may simultaneously
                          excluded under state       receive and which are
                          TANF or Medicaid policy.   administered by the
                                                     same caseworkers in
                                                     some states. Therefore,
                                                     this reduces program
                                                     complexity and the
                                                     potential for confusion
                                                     by participants and
                                                     caseworkers.
    Simplified Self-     Simplifies the method for  Results in participants
     Employment           determining the cost of    having to provide less
     Determination        doing business in cases    documentation and
     option               where an applicant is      simplifies paperwork
                          self-employed.             for caseworkers.
    Standard Medical     Establishes a standard     Eliminates the need for
     Deductions waiver    medical deduction in       participants to provide
                          lieu of calculating        proof of all medical
                          actual medical expenses    expenses and
                          for individuals who are    streamlines eligibility
                          disabled or elderly.       and benefit
                                                     determination
                                                     procedures for
                                                     caseworkers by reducing
                                                     the amount of
                                                     information to be
                                                     verified and
                                                     documented.
    Standard Homeless    States can use a standard  Eliminates the need for
     Housing Cost         deduction from income of   participants to provide
     option               $143 per month for         proof of all shelter
                          homeless households with   expenses, which
                          some shelter expenses.     streamlines eligibility
                                                     and benefit
                                                     determination
                                                     procedures for
                                                     caseworkers by reducing
                                                     the amount of
                                                     information to be
                                                     verified and
                                                     documented.
    Standard Utility     Establishes a standard     Eliminates the need for
     Allowances (SUAs)    utility allowance in       participants to provide
     option               lieu of using actual       proof of all utility
                          utility expenses. States   expenses and
                          that further make the      streamlines eligibility
                          SUA mandatory for all      and benefit
                          households opt out of      determination
                          the requirement to         procedures by reducing
                          prorate SUAs for           the amount of
                          households that share      information caseworkers
                          living space. These        need to verify and
                          states are also required   document. Further,
                          to use a SUA that          reduces the likelihood
                          includes the heating and   of a calculation error
                          cooling costs of public    because the caseworker
                          housing residents with     no longer has to
                          shared meters that are     prorate certain cases.
                          charged only for excess
                          utility costs.
    Transitional         Establishes a set benefit  Reduces participant
     Benefits option      amount for families        reporting burden and
                          transitioning off TANF,    reduces caseworker
                          or other state-funded      paperwork requirements
                          cash assistance,           at a time when the
                          eliminating participant    household's situation
                          reporting requirements     may be particularly
                          and reducing caseworker    subject to fluctuation.
                          processing during the
                          transition period.
    Averaging Student    Students enrolled at       Reduces caseworker
     Hours waiver         least half-time in an      burden associated with
                          institution of higher      needing to confirm the
                          education, are             exact number of
                          ineligible to              employment hours each
                          participate unless they    week.
                          meet at least one of
                          several criteria. One
                          criterion allows
                          students to participate
                          if they are employed for
                          a minimum of 20 hours a
                          week. The waiver allows
                          state agencies to
                          average the number of
                          hours worked over a
                          month in determining
                          compliance with the
                          student work
                          requirement.
    Interest Income      Enables state agencies to  Reduces the amount of
     Verification         waive verification of      verification the
     waiver               income from interest and   participant needs to
                          dividends if less than a   supply and the amount
                          certain amount.            of information the
                                                     caseworker needs to
                                                     verify.
    Recertification      Allows the state to waive  Reduces the frequency
     Interview for        the recertification        with which
     Elderly or           interview for households   recertification
     Disabled             in which all adult         interviews need to
     Individuals with     members are elderly or     happen, thus reducing
     No Earned Income     disabled and have no       the opportunity for the
     waiver               earned income.             caseworker to discover
                                                     changes in
                                                     circumstances that
                                                     would need to be
                                                     documented and
                                                     verified.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Flexibilities that modified procedures for receiving and processing
                                   information
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Online Applications  Allows SNAP applicants to  May ease the completion
     and Case             apply for benefits         of paperwork for the
     Management           online. Many state         participant and the
                          websites also allow        caseworker.
                          clients to view            Participants can
                          information about their    complete applications
                          case or report changes     and submit paperwork
                          in factors that affect     online. For the
                          eligibility or benefit     caseworker, information
                          levels.                    provided on-line may be
                                                     easier to document,
                                                     retrieve, and process.
    Call Centers         Allows states to reduce    May ease participant
                          the time local offices     reporting of required
                          spend answering phone      household changes. May
                          calls concerning general   also reduce burden on
                          SNAP information and       local offices.
                          application and benefit
                          status, conducting
                          certification
                          interviews, handling
                          customer complaints, and
                          processing changes. In
                          some states, call
                          centers go beyond these
                          functions to directly
                          certify and re-certify
                          households.
    Modernization        Allows states to take      May simplify program
     Initiatives          modernization              administration, for
                          initiatives which          example, through
                          include a range of         specialization of
                          innovative managerial      caseworker tasks, as
                          and technology solutions   this enables staff to
                          to increase efficiency.    focus on certain
                                                     aspects of the
                                                     eligibility process,
                                                     thus increasing
                                                     efficiency and
                                                     potentially reducing
                                                     errors.
    Document Imaging     Allows states to use       May simplify program
                          document imaging to scan   administration by
                          paper documents and        making applicant
                          convert them to digital    documentation
                          images that are stored     electronically
                          in an electronic format.   available, thus easing
                                                     the certification
                                                     process
    Early Denial         FNS regulations allow      May help households
     Waivers              households 30 days to      avoid a disruption in
                          provide verification       benefits due to missing
                          prior to denying the       paperwork. Thus, this
                          household's application,   may prevent applicants
                          in cases of missing        from having to re-
                          documentation. Under the   apply, which introduces
                          waiver, state agencies     more opportunities for
                          may deny an application    error, than if the
                          if the applicant fails     households had provided
                          to provide verification    necessary verifications
                          within 10 days of the      to continue their
                          state agency's request.    benefits.
                          However, the client
                          still has the right to
                          provide the information
                          by the 30th day and if
                          she or he does so, the
                          application must not be
                          denied.
    Reinstatement        Allows states to           May prevent applicants
     waiver               reinstate recently         from having to re-
                          ineligible households      apply, reducing
                          without requiring a new    application volume and
                          application if the         the opportunity for
                          household provides         participant or
                          verification required to   caseworker error.
                          reestablish eligibility
                          during the calendar
                          month following the
                          effective date of
                          closure.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis of information in USDA's 2013 State Options report,
      USDA's SNAP Certification Policy Waiver Database (updated as of March
      2016), and other FNS documents.DGAO-16-708T.
    Note: In conducting this analysis, we did not analyze Federal or state
      laws or regulations, and all descriptions and analysis of the various
      policy flexibilities are based on the documents and research we
      reviewed.
    a Flexibilities may have had multiple characteristics that suggested
      opposite effects; in those instances we selected what we considered to
      be the over-riding or primary effect.
    b Whether the caseworker needs to process a change, which the caseworker
      comes to know about but that the participant was not required to
      report, depends on whether the state has a policy to act on all
      changes.
    c See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, The
      Effect of Simplified Reporting on Food Stamp Payment Accuracy, October
      2005.

       Table 8: Three Options That Potentially Increase the Likelihood of
             Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Errors
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Option/ Waiver           Description               Explanation a
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Comparable           Can disqualify SNAP        Adds a step for
     Disqualification     applicants or recipients   caseworkers to
     option               who fail to perform        determine whether
                          actions required by        disqualifications in
                          other Federal, state, or   other programs are to
                          local means tested         be imposed for SNAP.
                          public assistance
                          programs. A state agency
                          has the option to select
                          the types of
                          disqualifications within
                          a program that it wants
                          to impose on SNAP
                          recipients.
    Child Support-       Can disqualify             Adds a step for
     Related              individuals who fail to    caseworkers to
     Disqualification     cooperate with child       determine whether an
     option               support enforcement        applicant or
                          agencies, who are in       participant met these
                          arrears in court-ordered   conditions, thereby
                          child support payments,    increasing the
                          or both.                   opportunity for error.
    Simplified           Averages expenses that     Requires an additional
     Deduction            are billed more or less    calculation to average
     Determination        often than on a monthly    a bill across several
     option               basis. For example, if a   months instead of
                          household receives a       counting the bill in
                          single bill in February    the month it was due.
                          which covers a 3 month
                          period, the bill may be
                          averaged over February,
                          March, and April.
                          Conversely, a one-time
                          only expense can be
                          averaged over the entire
                          certification period in
                          which they are billed.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis of information in USDA's 2013 State Options report,
      USDA's SNAP Certification Policy Waiver Database (updated as of March
      2016), and other FNS documents.DGAO-16-708T.
    Note: In conducting this analysis, we did not analyze Federal or state
      laws or regulations, and all descriptions and analysis of the various
      policy flexibilities are based on the documents and research we
      reviewed.
    a Flexibilities may have had multiple characteristics that suggested
      opposite effects; in those instances we selected what we considered to
      be the over-riding or primary effect.

      Table 9: Four Options That Likely Have a Mixed Effect on Supplemental
               Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Payment Errors
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Option/ Waiver           Description                Explanation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Simplified           State agencies can act on  If a state chooses to
     Reporting--Action    all changes reported       act on all changes,
     on Change option     during the certification   then caseworkers may
                          period, or to act only     have to process more
                          on certain changes. This   household changes.
                          option allows states       However, this option
                          that have combined SNAP/   could also lead to less
                          Temporary Assistance for   participant and
                          Needy Families (TANF)      caseworker confusion
                          programs to more           due to aligned program
                          seamlessly integrate. It   requirements.
                          avoids a situation where
                          the TANF program has
                          acted on a change, but
                          SNAP has not, and
                          decreases caseworker
                          burden by aligning the
                          programs.
    Ineligible Non-      Although ineligible non-   If the state chooses to
     Citizens Income      citizens cannot receive    prorate income, this
     and Deductions       SNAP benefits, their       adds another step to
     option               income is relevant to      the eligibility
                          the SNAP determinations    determination process,
                          for other eligible         increasing program
                          individuals who live in    complexity. However,
                          their household. States    according to FNS,
                          have various options for   prorating for all
                          counting the income and    ineligible non-citizens
                          deductions of ineligible   (as opposed to only for
                          non-citizens, including    some) may simplify
                          to prorate these           program administration
                          amounts.                   because of uniform
                                                     eligibility rules.
    Broad Based          BBCE makes households      In states that adopted
     Categorical          categorically eligible     BBCE and, in effect,
     Eligibility (BBCE)   for SNAP because they      eliminated SNAP asset
     option               qualify for a non-cash     limits, participants no
                          TANF or state funded       longer need to provide
                          benefit, such as a         documentation of assets
                          pamphlet or 800 number.    and caseworkers no
                                                     longer needed to verify
                                                     these amounts. At the
                                                     same time, in states
                                                     that adopted BBCE and,
                                                     in effect, increased
                                                     the SNAP gross income
                                                     limit, it may result in
                                                     greater numbers of
                                                     households with earned
                                                     income participating in
                                                     SNAP. According to
                                                     USDA's data on causes
                                                     of error, income is the
                                                     most common cause of
                                                     error when determining
                                                     benefit amounts.
    Drug Felony          Federal law permanently    The effect of this
     Disqualification     disqualifies people from   option on the
     option               SNAP participation if      likelihood of errors
                          they have been convicted   depends on whether a
                          of a state or Federal      modified ban or no ban
                          felony offense, based on   is adopted. Under a
                          behavior which occurred    modified ban, the level
                          after August 22, 1996,     of case complexity
                          involving the              appears to be similar
                          possession, use or         to what it would be
                          distribution of a          under a lifetime ban,
                          controlled substance.      as the caseworker would
                          State legislatures can     still need to delve
                          opt out of the penalty     into the participant's
                          entirely or choose to      criminal justice
                          impose less severe         background to ascertain
                          restrictions through a     what crime was
                          modified ban.              committed. However, in
                                                     a state with no ban,
                                                     case complexity would
                                                     be eased, as the
                                                     caseworker would no
                                                     longer need to research
                                                     the client's criminal
                                                     justice background.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis of information in USDA's 2013 State Options report,
      USDA's SNAP Certification Policy Waiver Database (updated as of March
      2016), and other FNS documents.DGAO-16-708T.
    Note: In conducting this analysis, we did not analyze Federal or state
      laws or regulations, and all descriptions and analysis of the various
      policy flexibilities are based on the documents and research we
      reviewed.

        Table 10: Nine Options and Waivers That Likely Have No Effect on
         Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Payment Errors
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Option/ Waiver           Description                Explanation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Child Support        Treats legally obligated   Has no effect on the
     Expense Income       child support payments     amount of information
     Exclusion option     made to non-household      participants need to
                          members as income          provide nor does it
                          exclusion rather than a    change case processing,
                          deduction. This option     as a household's child
                          helps to encourage         support payment still
                          payment of child support   needs to be assessed,
                          by excluding the amount    verified, and
                          paid from being            documented.
                          considered part of the
                          payer's gross income.
    Work Requirements    Individuals who fail to    Does not change case
     and                  comply with SNAP work      processing, as
     Disqualification     requirements without       caseworkers still have
     option               good cause are             to undertake the
                          ineligible for program     disqualification/
                          benefits and               sanction process.
                          disqualified from SNAP
                          for certain periods of
                          time, depending on how
                          many prior instances of
                          non-compliance there
                          have been. The law gives
                          states the options to
                          (1) set disqualification
                          periods longer than
                          these minimum mandatory
                          periods, (2) make the
                          disqualification
                          permanent upon the third
                          occurrence, and (3)
                          sanction the entire
                          household if the head of
                          household fails to
                          comply with work
                          requirements.
    Names for SNAP       As of Oct. 1, 2008, the    Has no effect on the
     option               name for the Food Stamp    likelihood of errors.
                          Program changed to
                          Supplemental Nutrition
                          Assistance Program
                          (SNAP). At the state
                          level, state agencies
                          may adopt the new
                          program name SNAP,
                          continue to refer to
                          their program as the
                          Food Stamp Program, or
                          choose an alternate
                          name.
    Electronic Notices   Allows the states to       Affects the method of
     waiver               issue electronic notices   communication with the
                          to clients who elect to    client, not program
                          receive notices via e-     requirements. Has no
                          mail rather than paper     effect on the amount of
                          mail.                      information
                                                     participants need to
                                                     provide, nor does it
                                                     change case processing.
    Not Pay for Postage  Waives the use of postage  Has no effect on the
     for Change Reports   paid envelopes for         information that
     waiver               change report forms.       participants need to
                                                     report and the
                                                     caseworkers need to
                                                     verify.
    Postpone Expedited   Allows the state to        Delays the information
     Service Interviews   postpone the               participants need to
     waiver               certification interview    report and that
                          for certain expedited      caseworkers need to
                          service households for     verify; thus it does
                          up to 2 months, provided   not ease program
                          that household identity    requirements but rather
                          is verified and staff      changes the timeframes.
                          have attempted to          If a case were selected
                          contact the household      for quality control
                          for interview.             review and the
                                                     interview had not yet
                                                     been completed due to
                                                     the waiver, differences
                                                     in the quality control
                                                     determined benefit
                                                     amount and the actual
                                                     amount that were
                                                     discovered through an
                                                     interview would not be
                                                     considered an error
                                                     because of the
                                                     existence of the
                                                     waiver.
    Provide Paper Copy   Allows the state to waive  Has no effect on the
     of Online            its obligation to          likelihood of errors.
     Application waiver   provide a copy of the
                          online application
                          information to clients
                          who do not request a
                          copy.
    Telephone Interview  Enables states to allow    Has no effect on the
     In-Lieu of Face-to-  interviews via telephone   amount of information
     Face Interview       in lieu of a face-to-      participants need to
     waiver               face interview without     provide, nor does it
                          the need to document       change case processing.
                          client hardship.           FNS has reported that
                                                     it found little
                                                     evidence that the
                                                     likelihood of errors
                                                     was affected by the
                                                     interview method.
    On-Demand Interview  Allows the state to waive  Has no effect on the
     waiver               interview scheduling       amount of information
                          requirements, allowing     participants need to
                          clients the option to      provide, nor does it
                          call the state to          change case processing.
                          complete the interview
                          during business hours
                          within a certain time
                          period.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis of information in USDA's 2013 State Options report,
      USDA's SNAP Certification Policy Waiver Database (updated as of March
      2016), and other FNS documents.DGAO-16-708T.
    Note: In conducting this analysis, we did not analyze Federal or state
      laws or regulations, and all descriptions and analysis of the various
      policy flexibilities are based on the documents and research we
      reviewed.

              This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to
            copyright protection in the United States. The published
            product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
            without further permission from GAO. However, because this work
            may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission
            from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
            reproduce this material separately.
    GAO's Mission
        The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
    investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
    its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
    and accountability of the Federal Government for the American people.
    GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates Federal programs and
    policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
    to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
    decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
    values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
        The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
    cost is through GAO's website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday
    afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony,
    and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
    products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select ``E-mail Updates.''
    Order by Phone
        The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of
    production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
    publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
    and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's website,
    http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
        Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077,
    or TDD (202) 512-2537.
        Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
    MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
    information.
    Connect with GAO
        Connect with GAO on Facebook (http://facebook.com/usgao), Flickr
    (http://flickr.com/usgao), Twitter (http://twitter.com/usgao), and
    YouTube (http://youtube.com/usgao).
        Subscribe to our RSS Feeds (http://www.gao.gov/feeds.html) or E-
    mail Updates (http://www.gao.gov/subscribe/index.php).
        Listen to our Podcasts (http://www.gao.gov/podcast/watchdog.html)
    and read The Watchblog (http://blog.gao.gov/).
        Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
        Contact:

      Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
      Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
    Congressional Relations
        Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202)
    512-4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
    7125, Washington, D.C. 20548.
    Public Affairs
        Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Brown.
        Mr. Yost, 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF HON. DAVE YOST, AUDITOR, STATE OF OHIO, COLUMBUS,
                                   OH

        Mr. Yost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. You need to push your microphone closer.
        Mr. Yost. Chalk it up to nervousness, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and
    Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
    testify today, and particularly want to recognize my friend,
    Representative Gibbs from Ohio, and Representative Fudge, for
    their service on this Committee.
        Recently, our team audited EBT card usage to identify
    indicators of fraud or misuse. The main goal of the audit was
    not to find cases of fraud, but to search for structural
    weaknesses in the program that heighten risk.
        Our findings lead me to conclude that there are likely
    millions of dollars of fraud in Ohio's $2.5 billion program.
    The problems we found will not resolve, of course, the Federal
    deficit, but fraud and poor management undermine public support
    for this program.
        We looked at a 6 month period in 2015. I have attached my
    entire report to my testimony. And in the interest of time, I
    will just point out a few of the more troubling findings. We
    identified 36 instances where dead people received benefits
    more than a year after their death. In some cases, someone was
    still using the card. Federal law requires at least an annual
    comparison of death records against beneficiaries, so the
    number should have been zero. There were actually more than
    1,800 people who continued to receive benefits after their
    death, but for a period of less than 1 year. We also found
    1,337 recipients with balances greater than $2,300; about twice
    the maximum benefit for a family of eight: 173 had balances of
    more than $5,000, including one who had more than $20,000
    balance. If you can bank thousands of dollars, I would
    respectfully suggest you are not in immediate need.
        States may only expunge benefits after an entire year of
    dormancy, but if a card is used just once, even for a can of
    soda, that 1 year clock resets and balances can continue to
    grow.
        We also saw some unusual card activity. When was the last
    time any of us went to the grocery store and walked away with a
    bill of exactly $100, with no cents charged? We found 183,400
    even-sum transactions, even-dollar transactions, worth $28.5
    million. The scatter graph that you see on your monitors, your
    iPads, illustrates that there are sets of transactions by
    retailer that would provide fertile ground for further
    investigation, looking at those at the top. Or how often have
    you checked out of the grocery store at precisely the same time
    every month, and had exactly the same total every month, for 6
    months in a row? We found that, and you can see the graphic
    there. We also found multiple purchases by one person at the
    same retailer, within the same hour. A person we have dubbed
    Recipient 9, used their card to make six purchases within 1
    hour, totaling $1,555. When did you last spend that much on
    groceries?
        Recipients can use their benefit cards in other states, and
    we expected to see usage in our neighboring states. We did not
    expect to find usage in states as far away as Florida and Texas
    and Minnesota. We found $28.7 million that were spent outside
    of Ohio. More than \1/3\ of that spent in far-flung states. Are
    these recipients living in the other states, or selling
    benefits, or double-dipping? Important questions to answer.
        The Federal Public Assistance Reporting Information System,
    PARIS, which has previously been cited, uses data matching to
    identify people who might be receiving duplicate benefits.
        In conclusion, I do not believe that fraud is rampant in
    Ohio, but it does exist and it is significant. Food stamp fraud
    hardens the hearts of good people, and deafens their ears to
    the sound of hunger. Every dollar wasted or fraudulently spent
    is a dollar that could be used for its intended purpose to feed
    the poor. For those who hunger and those who pay the bill, we
    owe a greater effort toward integrity.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Yost follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Dave Yost, Auditor, State of Ohio, Columbus,
                                       OH
        Good morning Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members
    of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
    particularly want to recognize Ohio Representatives Gibbs and Fudge for
    their service on this Committee.
        My name is Dave Yost. I am the Auditor of the State of Ohio, one of
    five constitutional officers elected statewide.
        Recently, our team audited EBT card usage data to identify
    indicators of fraud or misuse. The main goal of the audit was not to
    find cases of fraud, but to search for structural weaknesses in the
    program that heighten risk. Our findings lead me to conclude that there
    are likely millions of dollars in fraud in Ohio's $2.5 billion program.
        The problems we found will not resolve the Federal deficit, but
    fraud and poor management undermine public support for the program.
    Ohio SNAP Audit Findings
        We looked at a 6 month period in 2015. I have attached the entire
    report to my testimony, but in the interest of time, I will point out a
    few of the more troubling findings.
    Deceased Recipients
        We identified 36 instances where dead people received benefits more
    than a year after their death. In some cases, someone was still using
    the card. Federal law requires at least an annual comparison of death
    records against the list of beneficiaries--so the number should have
    been zero. (There were actually more than 1,862 people who continued to
    receive benefits after death, but for a period of less than a year.)
    Excessive Card Balances
        We also found 1,337 recipients with balances greater than $2,300--
    about twice the maximum benefit for a family of eight. Some 173 had
    balances of more than $5,000--including one with more than $20,000.
        If you can bank thousands of dollars, you are not in immediate
    need.
        States may only expunge benefits after an entire year of dormancy.
    But if the card is used just once--even for a can of soda--that 1 year
    clock resets and balances can continue to grow.
    Unusual Card Activity
        When was the last time you went grocery shopping and walked away
    with a bill of exactly $100 and no cents? We found 183,400 such
    examples of $100 or more--totaling $28.5 million.
    Even Dollar Transactions

        Or, how often have you checked out at the grocery store at
    precisely the same time every month and had the exact same total every
    month, 6 months in a row? We found that.
    Unusual Card Activity

        We also found multiple purchases by one person from the same
    retailer within the same hour. A person we've dubbed Recipient No. 9
    used their card to make six purchases for $1,555--all within 1 hour!
    When did you last spend that much on groceries?
    One Hour Transactions
    One Recipient, One Hour, Two Retailers, Six Transactions

        Recipients can use their benefit card in other states, and we
    expected to see usage in our neighboring states. But we didn't expect
    to find usage in states as far away as Florida, Texas and Minnesota. We
    found $28.7 million spent outside of Ohio, more than a third of it
    spent in far-flung states. Are these recipients living in other states,
    or selling benefits, or double-dipping?
    Where is Ohio money going?

        The Federal Public Assistance Reporting Information System (PARIS)
    uses data-matching to identify people who might receive duplicate
    benefits in two or more states. But the states only have to submit
    information once a year and are not required to report on SNAP. This
    important program needs to be strengthened.
    Multiple Reports
        In total, we reviewed seven different reports that identify
    retailers and individuals with suspect activity. Merely being on such a
    report does not mean that a person committed fraud.
        But we found nearly 1,100 recipients who appeared on five of the
    seven reports and more than 1,400 retailers flagged on four reports.
        Appearing on one report might be meaningless. Showing up on most of
    them is what we in law enforcement refer to as a clue.
    Benefits of Auditing and Data Mining
        There is much more in the report, but all of it points to two
    things: weaknesses in the system that can be exploited to commit fraud,
    and a set of tools that can be used to manage the program better, much
    better.
        This is not limited to Ohio. Only about \1/4\ of the states have
    undertaken this sort of audit, but the results are similar across the
    country.
        Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that this Committee is undertaking
    study and reform. Our report makes some suggestions, and you will hear
    others. But, I would suggest an overarching principle for reform:
    Block-granting this program to the states.
        While we can identify the problems, the solutions are often less
    obvious. The only iron rule in government, it seems, is the Law of
    Unintended Consequences. When the Federal Government makes a change and
    there are unintended consequences, we all feel the pain if a reform
    fails. If the states develop their own management systems, failures
    will be limited to that state, and the successes and innovations will
    be there for others to copy.
        I do not believe that fraud is rampant in Ohio, but it does exist,
    and it is significant. Food stamp fraud hardens the hearts of good
    people and deafens their ears to the sound of hunger. Every dollar
    wasted or fraudulently spent is a dollar that could be used for its
    intended purpose: to feed the poor. For those who hunger, and for those
    who pay the bill, we owe a greater effort toward integrity.
                                  [Attachment]
    Ohio Department of Job and Family Services_Auditor's Report on the
            Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for the Period
            January 1, 2015 Through June 30, 2015
    Hon. Dave Yost, Auditor of State
    Table of Contents
        Auditor's Report
        General Background
        Deceased Recipients
        Duplicated Recipients
        Unusual Card Activity

              Even Dollar Transactions
              Replacement Cards
              Out-of-State Activity
              Manual Card Entries
              Full Benefit Withdrawal Transactions
              Excessive PIN Attempts
              Invalid Card Attempts
              Multiple Consecutive Transactions
              Recipients and Retailers Identified on Multiple Reports

        Excessive Card Balances
        EPPIC Reports Use
        Overall Recommendations
    Auditor's Report
      Ohio Department of Job and Family Services
      30 East Broad Street, 32nd Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215

        We have audited the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services'
    (the Department) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP--
    formerly known as Food Stamps) Electronic Benefit Transfer Card (EBT)
    usage data and other pertinent information for the period January 1,
    2015 through June 30, 2015, under the authority of Ohio Revised Code
    Section 117.11.
        We have performed the procedures enumerated in this report to
    identify anomalies which may indicate higher risks related to misuse,
    fraud, or other concerns regarding SNAP EBT Card transactions and
    inquired whether procedures were in place to mitigate the identified
    risks.
        The information that follows describes the procedures performed
    during our audit and the related results for each procedure. Our
    analysis was based on information provided by the Department directly,
    including reports for analysis they obtained from a service
    organization; the completeness and accuracy of which we could not
    verify. The Department indicated they reviewed the reports prior to
    providing them for audit. Because retailer and recipient information is
    confidential according to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 at 7
    U.S.C. 2018(c) and 7 CFR 278.1(q), we have not included any names or
    other identifiers in our report results.
        This engagement was not a financial or performance audit, the
    objectives of which would be vastly different. Therefore, it was not
    within the scope of this work to conduct a comprehensive and detailed
    examination of the SNAP EBT Card activity or test for compliance with
    program requirements and other Federal regulations, or evaluate for
    efficiencies of the processes.
        On May 26, 2016, we held an exit conference with the Department's
    management and discussed the contents of this report. A response was
    received on June 8, 2016 and was evaluated and included in our working
    papers.

    Dave Yost,
    Auditor of State,
    Columbus, Ohio,
    May 26, 2016.
    General Background
        The Department is the single state agency responsible for
    administering the SNAP program in Ohio. During Fiscal Year (FY) 2015,
    the Department reported approximately $2.5 billion in SNAP benefits
    issued to 824,231 primary recipients on behalf of their assistance
    groups (referred to throughout this report as recipients);
    approximately $1.3 billion of which was issued during our 6 month audit
    period. The Department utilizes a state-supervised, county-administered
    approach for the SNAP program. As a result, certain processing
    functions are performed by the 88 County Departments of Job and Family
    Services (CDJFS). The Department's Client Registry Information System--
    Enhanced (CRIS-E) determines eligibility and benefit amounts based on
    income, dependents, and other information entered by the 88 CDJFS. The
    Ohio Benefits System (a new integrated eligibility system) is expected
    to replace CRIS-E in 2017. Any recommendations referenced to CRIS-E
    would also apply to the new eligibility system. The CDJFS are also
    tasked with maintaining the documentation to support the information
    entered into CRIS-E and for following up on recipient issues.
        The Department has also contracted with a service organization,
    Xerox, to perform various functions related to the SNAP EBT Card
    process, including:

       issuing EBT cards to SNAP recipients based on eligibility
            information from CRIS-E;

       loading available benefits onto the EBT cards each month
            based on information from CRIS-E;

       expunging expired benefits from the cards based on rules
            provided by the Department;

       processing food purchase transactions from the retailers
            (provided to the United States Department of Agriculture's,
            Food Nutrition Services (FNS)); and

       requesting reimbursement for food purchases on behalf of the
            retailers from FNS.

        The EBT cards are automatically loaded each month with the
    recipients' benefits issued. The recipients are then able to use their
    benefits to purchase (claim) food at retailers authorized by FNS by
    swiping their card and entering their PIN. FNS has maintained
    responsibility for the identification and investigation of fraud
    related to retailers, although oftentimes contracts with other agencies
    for this function; the state is responsible for the identification and
    investigation of fraud related to recipients.
        We requested and the Department provided several CRIS-E reports and
    Electronic Payment Processing Information Control (EPPIC--Xerox report
    package system) reports, in order to perform our audit. We also
    requested listings of deceased individuals from the Ohio Department of
    Health for 2010 through 2014. In addition, we inquired with the
    Department and ten selected CDJFS regarding procedures used to mitigate
    the identified risks. All amounts included in this report have been
    rounded to the nearest dollar, unless otherwise indicated.
    Deceased Recipients
        7 CFR 272.14(c)(1) requires that states shall provide a system for:

              Comparing identifiable information about each household
            member against information from databases on deceased
            individuals. States shall make the comparison of matched data
            at the time of application and no less frequently than once a
            year.

        If benefits are issued and loaded onto EBT cards on behalf of
    deceased individuals, there is a higher risk those benefits will be
    obtained and used by an unauthorized individual. This risk is further
    increased if benefits are not terminated timely. Under the current
    process, the Department receives files weekly from the United States
    Department of Commerce--National Technical Information Services' (NTIS)
    database listing all deceased individuals. The listing is uploaded and
    stored within CRIS-E and CRIS-E matches to recipient data at midnight
    that evening. When CRIS-E matches a new deceased record with an
    existing recipient, an error alert is generated for the recipient's
    case file record. The CDJFS case worker is to review and verify the
    alert and take appropriate action. However, because of the current
    ``pay and chase'' process in place, if these alerts are not worked
    timely, there is an increased risk and effort in recouping
    inappropriate benefits claimed. Using the 2010 through 2014 deceased
    files obtained from the Ohio Department of Health, we performed the
    following procedures:

      (A)  We compared deceased individuals to benefit recipients in CRIS-E
                and identified 1,862 instances in which a deceased
                individual was issued benefits during the audit period. We
                then evaluated the date of death to determine if it was
                prior to January 1, 2014 to evaluate the Department's
                compliance with 7 CFR 272.14(c)(1) which only requires they
                perform the match to deceased individuals ``no less
                frequently than annually'', resulting in a possibility of a
                12 month lapse between the date of death and the update of
                CRIS-E records. We identified 36 instances in which the
                individual's date of death was prior to January 1, 2014
                and, thus, the CRIS-E file should have been updated prior
                to our audit period. The Department issued an estimated
                $24,406 in benefits to these recipients; $13,598 of which
                was claimed for nine of these recipients, resulting in
                questioned costs for the claimed amount included in the FY
                2015 State of Ohio Single Audit Report. The Department's
                related corrective action plan was also included in the
                State of Ohio Single Audit Report.

      (B)  We haphazardly selected 20 deceased individuals from those
                remaining in the deceased file (excluding the items matched
                from step A above). For each individual selected, we
                verified CRIS-E was updated within 1 year from the date of
                death and the individual's benefits were terminated, per
                the code of Federal regulations. There were claims paid to
                the recipient number after the date of death, however, all
                20 of these individuals were part of a larger recipient
                group that would be associated with the same recipient
                number.

                              Recommendation No. 1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We recommend the Department implement additional procedures to
     reasonably ensure the CDJFS caseworkers are reviewing and verifying the
     CRIS-E error alerts and taking appropriate action timely to reduce the
     risk that benefits are being claimed by an unauthorized individual. The
     Department should:

         Conduct additional mandatory training with CDJFS
         caseworkers pertaining to the review and resolution of CRIS-E
         errors alerts generated for deceased individuals, including more
         timely resolution of alerts.

         Implement a process to prioritize these alerts for the
         CDJFS caseworkers to follow up on based on number of fields
         matched.

         Perform quarterly reviews, at a minimum, of all CRIS-E
         error alerts generated for deceased individuals and reasonably
         ensure they are being investigated and resolved timely by the
         CDJFS.

         Consider implementing an automated control in CRIS-E to
         terminate eligibility for recipients when all data related to the
         deceased individual matches to the data provided by the NTIS.

         Investigate the recipients specifically identified in our
         testing to ensure any necessary repayments are received or
         additional actions are taken.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Duplicated Recipients
        If one individual is assigned multiple recipient numbers, there is
    a higher risk the individual will be issued duplicate benefits, which
    could result in unallowable and/or fraudulent benefit claims paid. When
    a new applicant's information is entered into CRIS-E, a recipient
    number is assigned to the applicant. If the CRIS-E edit checks identify
    this individual may already be assigned a recipient number, an error
    alert is generated for the CDJFS caseworker to review/investigate the
    alert and take appropriate action. These error alerts are generated to
    help ensure one individual is not assigned multiple recipient numbers.
    In addition, during the application entry process, the caseworker is to
    ensure the [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber provided is valid by checking
    it in a CRIS-E subsystem, which interfaces with the United States
    Social Security Administration's (SSA) database. Using the overall
    benefits listing report from CRIS-E, we performed the following
    procedures:

      (A)  We identified all individuals on the recipient listing who had
                the same name and date of birth, but with different
                [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umbers and recipient numbers. There
                were 153 instances identified where an individual's name
                and date of birth was associated with more than one
                recipient number for a total of 322 recipient numbers. We
                were able to determine that, in 104 of the 153 instances,
                each individual had a valid [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber
                and were, therefore, separate individuals. For the
                remaining 49 instances related to 98 recipient numbers, one
                of the [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umbers was not a valid
                number. The Department indicated that, in 37 of these
                instances, the [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber was
                inaccurately entered initially. Once the mistake was
                identified, the CDJFS case worker entered the correct
                [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber and a new recipient number was
                generated. However, there were 12 instances related to 24
                recipient numbers in which benefits, totaling $17,878, were
                issued for the same months and the recipient could have
                received duplicate benefits. This amount was included in
                the questioned costs reported in the FY 2015 State of Ohio
                Single Audit Report. The Department's related corrective
                action plan was also included in the State of Ohio Single
                Audit Report.

      (B)  We compared [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umbers to all recipient
                numbers in CRIS-E. There were four instances identified
                where two recipient numbers were associated with the same
                [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber for a total of eight recipient
                numbers. We were able to determine no overlapping benefit
                payments were made to four of these recipient numbers
                because a new recipient number was assigned when the
                individual reapplied due to changes in their eligibility.
                In the other four cases, the recipient numbers were created
                within the system for test purposes and were not actual
                recipients.

                              Recommendation No. 2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We recommend the Department implement additional procedures to
     reasonably ensure the CDJFS caseworkers are reviewing and investigating
     the CRIS-E error alerts and validating the [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber
     provided during the application process. The Department should:

         Conduct additional mandatory training with CDJFS
         caseworkers pertaining to the application entry process. The
         training provided should specifically address how to review,
         investigate, and resolve errors alerts generated during the
         applicant entry process and reiterate the importance of validating
         the [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber in the SSA subsystem.

         Implement a process to prioritize these alerts for the
         CDJFS caseworkers to follow up on.

         Perform quarterly reviews, at a minimum, of all CRIS-E
         error alerts generated for possible duplicated recipients and
         reasonably ensure they are being investigated and resolved timely
         by the CDJFS.

         Consider implementing an automated control in CRIS-E to
         perform a real-time [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber check to ensure a
         valid [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber is entered prior to the
         determination of eligibility.

         Investigate the recipients specifically identified in our
         testing to ensure any necessary repayments are received or
         additional actions are taken.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unusual Card Activity
        In many instances, fraud or other issues may be identified through
    data analysis. Xerox has made several standard ``fraud'' reports
    available to the Department and 88 CDJFS within the EPPIC reporting
    system. These reports can be used to identify possible anomalies or
    unusual occurrences pertaining to EBT card activities. We requested
    several EPPIC reports for our audit period from the Department, who
    reviewed the reports provided by Xerox prior to releasing them to us.
    We then reviewed the reports to identify anomalies which may indicate
    higher risks related to misuse of EBT cards.
    Even Dollar Transactions
        We identified even dollar purchase transactions exceeding $100.
    Even dollar transactions are not common when purchasing food,
    particularly at small retailers where inventories are more limited.
    This risk could be less at large retailers where recipients are more
    likely to use their full benefit amount, typically issued in whole
    dollars. Therefore, excessive even dollar transactions associated with
    a certain recipient and/or retailer could signify potential fraudulent
    activity. The total even dollar transactions for our audit period were
    as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Total         Total Dollar
      Total Retailers   Total Recipients    Transactions         Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              13,200            129,141           183,437       $28,503,733
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (i)  We prepared a graph showing all retailers utilized by recipients
                for even dollar transactions and the total number of these
                transactions per retailer to identify outliers.
    Even Dollar Transactions

      (ii)  We analyzed all even dollar transactions exceeding $100 to
                identify retailers and recipients with multiple
                occurrences. The following tables list the top 10 small
                retailers (i.e., those retailers not part of a chain
                representing higher risk) and recipients.

                Small Retailers--Highest Even Dollar Transactions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Retailer No.         Total Dollar Value      No. of Transactions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    1                 $146,971                     690
                    2                 $119,133                     707
                    3                 $115,993                     716
                    4                 $112,900                     776
                    5                  $94,356                     597
                    6                  $89,918                     457
                    7                  $80,971                     370
                    8                  $68,516                     264
                    9                  $59,636                     236
                   10                  $59,238                     291
                            ------------------------------------------------
      Total................           $947,632                   5,104
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Recipients--Highest Even Dollar Transactions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Retailer No.         Total Dollar Value      No. of Transactions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    1                  $11,504                      60
                    2                   $4,626                      12
                    3                   $3,740                       6
                    4                   $3,258                       6
                    5                   $3,119                       6
                    6                   $3,096                       6
                    7                   $3,000                       6
                    8                   $2,908                       9
                    9                   $2,760                      11
                   10                   $2,734                       8
                            ------------------------------------------------
      Total................            $40,745                     130
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (iii)  We analyzed one recipient in our top 10 who also made
                significant even dollar purchases at one of the top 10
                small retailers listed above. Below are the results.

                    Recipient No. 2 Even Dollar Transactions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Date and Time of      Amount of
     Transaction No.      Transaction        Transaction        Retailer
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 1     1/3/2015 12:00               $575            No. 1
                                 a.m.
                 2     1/3/2015 12:04               $196            No. 1
                                 a.m.
                 3     2/3/2015 12:01               $575            No. 1
                                 a.m.
                 4     2/3/2015 12:03               $196            No. 1
                                 a.m.
                 5     3/3/2015 12:01               $575            No. 1
                                 a.m.
                 6     3/3/2015 12:02               $196            No. 1
                                 a.m.
                 7     4/3/2015 12:00               $575            No. 1
                                 a.m.
                 8     4/3/2015 12:02               $196            No. 1
                                 a.m.
                 9     5/3/2015 12:00               $575            No. 1
                                 a.m.
                10     5/3/2015 12:03               $196            No. 1
                                 a.m.
                11     6/3/2015 12:01               $575            No. 1
                                 a.m.
                12     6/3/2015 12:04               $196            No. 1
                                 a.m.
                                         -------------------
      Total..........                             $4,626
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Recommendation No. 3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
         The Even Dollar Transaction Report should be used as a
         monitoring tool to identify recipients with a significant number of
         even dollar transactions and implement procedures to investigate
         unusual activity.

         As noted in the table above for Recipient 2, the dates,
         times of use, and same dollar amounts indicate an unusual pattern
         of use of the EBT card. The Department should review the individual
         transactions for each recipient and retailer identified in our
         testing to determine whether the amount and time the transactions
         were completed are unusual and should be further investigated.

         The outliers identified in the retailer graph above should
         be reviewed to determine if there is anything unusual about the
         transactions associated with these retailers and if these retailers
         should be referred to the appropriate investigative agency.

         As other anomalies are noted pertaining to retailers, the
         information should be forwarded to the appropriate investigative
         agency.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Replacement Cards
        7 CFR 274.6(b)(5), effective November 2013, states, in part, ``The
    state agency may require an individual member of a household to contact
    the state agency to provide an explanation in cases where the number of
    requests for card replacements is determined excessive. If they so
    require, the state agency must establish a threshold for the number of
    card replacements during a specified period of time to be considered
    excessive. That threshold shall not be less than four cards requested
    within 12 months prior to the request . . .'' The Department has
    determined that four or more replacement cards issued during a 12 month
    period is considered excessive. We identified recipients that were
    issued replacement cards four or more times (``excessive replacement
    card recipients'') during our audit period. Excessive replacement cards
    issued to recipients could indicate the cards are being sold or
    otherwise traded for cash or other commodities, requiring the recipient
    to request additional cards. There were 1,431 recipients that were
    issued four or more replacement cards during our audit period. We also
    compared the number of recipients receiving excessive replacement cards
    to excessive replacement card recipients in 2011 for the same months;
    2011 was the last year similar procedures were conducted. See the
    results in the graph below.
    Excessive (Four Or More) Card Replacements

        We also compared the fluctuation percentage for recipients with ten
    or more replacement cards to the total number of SNAP recipients. In
    2011, we determined recipients issued ten or more replacement cards
    over the life of the EBT card program starting in March 2006 were
    excessive and reviewed accordingly. A decrease in the number of
    recipients with ten or more replacement cards issued was expected if
    recommendations made in the 2011 audit were implemented. There was a
    decrease in the percentage of recipients with ten or more replacement
    cards issued from 2011 to 2015 for the same 6 month period, and
    therefore, it appears that the Department implemented procedures to
    reduce the number of replacement cards issued.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             % of Recipients
                         Total Excessive     Total SNAP       with Frequent
          Period        Replacement Card     Recipients        Replacement
                            Recipients                            Cards
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              2011                  17           832,677          0.02042%
              2015                   2           824,231          0.00024%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Recommendation No. 4
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Implement procedures to review the Card Issuance & Replacement
     Report to reasonably ensure that excessive replacement cards issued are
     investigated and any possible fraudulent activity resulting from
     excessive issuances is investigated and action taken.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Out-of-State Activity
        We identified all EBT card activity occurring out of state. If EBT
    cards are excessively utilized out of state, this could indicate the
    recipient does not live within state lines, is receiving benefits in
    more than one state, and/or exchanging their EBT card with others for
    cash and/or other commodities. The total purchase transactions made out
    of state were:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Recipients         Number of Transactions       Total Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              118,316                  909,177              $28,725,305
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (i)  We prepared a graph showing all retailers utilized by SNAP
                recipients out-of-state and the total number of
                transactions per retailer to identify outliers.
    Out-of-State Activity

      (ii)  We removed all the border state activity from the listing and
                identified the following top 10 non-contiguous states with
                the most activity:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State              Total      Total Amount    Top Two Cities within the
                     Recipients                              State
                        with
                      Activity
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Florida               9,174      $2,125,844  Orlando            $119,130
                                                 Jacksonville       $104,091
    Georgia               5,065      $1,149,962  Atlanta            $124,922
                                                 Decatur             $58,833
    Minnesota             4,733        $678,023  Marshall           $596,709
                                                 Minneapolis         $17,893
    Texas                 2,458        $662,746  Houston             $92,770
                                                 San Antonio         $48,944
    Tennessee             4,823        $623,976  Memphis             $70,824
                                                 Sevierville         $58,100
    North Carolina        3,150        $590,430  Charlotte          $106,496
                                                 Fayetteville        $24,478
    South Carolina        3,215        $469,114  Myrtle Beach       $134,017
                                                 Columbia            $32,816
    New York              2,207        $454,060  Brooklyn            $75,394
                                                 Bronx               $61,914
    Illinois              2,783        $451,144  Chicago            $159,528
                                                 Rockford            $12,718
    Alabama               1,808        $414,881  Tuscaloosa          $51,448
                                                 Birmingham          $32,136
                   -----------------------------
      Total              39,416      $7,620,180
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (iii)  Next, we identified all the border state activity from the
                listing and noted the following:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State                      Total      Total Amount     Top Two Cities within the State     Distance to City from
                             Recipients                                                             Ohio Border
                                with                                                               (approximate)
                              Activity
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    West Virginia                20,887      $5,846,885  Mason                    $1,335,979  1 mile
                                                         Huntington                 $932,926  3 miles
    Kentucky                     26,471      $5,049,361  Ashland                  $1,361,317  1 mile
                                                         Covington                  $496,206  1 mile
    Michigan                     12,328      $2,295,295  Lambertville               $345,344  4 miles
                                                         Detroit                    $335,095  52 miles
    Pennsylvania                 11,299      $2,208,820  Erie                       $303,357  32 miles
                                                         Hermitage                  $285,184  5 miles
    Indiana                       9,850      $2,125,093  Richmond                   $496,068  5 miles
                                                         Fort Wayne                 $267,538  20 miles
                           -----------------------------
      Total                      80,835     $17,525,454
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (iv)  Since recipients living in counties bordering other states may
                use their card significantly within those bordering states,
                we removed all purchases made in a bordering state for any
                recipients whose county of residence bordered that state
                and analyzed the remaining activity. We identified the top
                10 recipients with the most out-of-state activity:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 County of       Total         Number of
    Recipient No.     State      Residence       Amount       Transactions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1              Pennsylvan  Franklin            $2,775                 31
                    ia
    2              Michigan    Cuyahoga            $2,722                  3
    3              New York    Cuyahoga            $2,155                  1
    4              South       Seneca              $2,056                  4
                    Carolina
    5              Kentucky    Butler              $1,663                 10
    6              Colorado    Montgomery          $1,608                 11
    7              Florida     Stark               $1,543                 24
    8              Illinois    Franklin            $1,533                  8
    9              Mississipp  Ashtabula           $1,471                  7
                    i
    10             Arkansas    Lucas               $1,442                 36
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Recommendation No. 5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Implement additional monitoring procedures to review the
         Out-of-State Activity Report and investigate recipients utilizing
         their EBT card multiple times out of state.

         Determine whether the large amount of out-of-state usage is
         due to travel required by employment or other valid reasons.

         Consider additional procedures to verify the recipient is
         not also receiving benefits in other states, which would require
         corroboration with those states.

         The outliers identified in the retailer graph above should
         be reviewed to determine if there is anything unusual about the
         transactions associated with these retailers and if these retailers
         should be referred to the appropriate investigative agency.

         As other anomalies are noted pertaining to retailers, the
         information should be forwarded to the appropriate investigative
         agency.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manual Card Entries
        We identified all purchase transactions associated with manual card
    entries. These entries involve keying in the card number and PIN at the
    point of sale either because the card swipe did not work or because the
    EBT card was not present. Excessive manual card entries could indicate
    the benefits are not being utilized by the intended recipient, or there
    are issues with the EBT cards themselves.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total
     Total Retailers   Total Recipients     Transactions      Total Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            10,188            109,172           679,236        $17,338,056
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (i)  We prepared a graph showing all retailers utilized by recipients
                for manual card entry transactions and the total number of
                these transactions per retailer to identify outliers.
    Manual Card Entry

      (ii)  We identified the top 10 retailers with the highest dollar
                amount associated with manual card entries.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Retailer No.               Amount                Transactions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    1                 $152,717                   2,813
                    2                 $148,435                     814
                    3                 $128,127                   1,950
                    4                 $124,986                   2,800
                    5                 $120,149                   2,251
                    6                  $92,091                   1,416
                    7                  $89,761                   1,533
                    8                  $85,404                   1,795
                    9                  $82,671                   1,591
                   10                  $81,736                   1,551
                            ------------------------------------------------
      Total................         $1,106,077                  18,514
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (iii)  We also identified the top 10 recipients with the highest
                dollar amount associated with manual card entries.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Retailer No.               Amount                Transactions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    1                   $8,055                      98
                    2                   $7,885                     161
                    3                   $7,003                     101
                    4                   $6,578                     268
                    5                   $6,347                     123
                    6                   $6,184                     266
                    7                   $6,017                      71
                    8                   $5,946                     602
                    9                   $5,942                     135
                   10                   $5,908                     110
                            ------------------------------------------------
      Total................            $65,866                   1,935
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Recommendation No. 6
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Implement procedures to review the Manual Card Entry Report
         and investigate recipients with an excessive number of manual card
         entries to determine the reason the EBT cards are not being swiped.
         These procedures could include recipient inquiry and the review of
         additional EPPIC reports.

         The outliers identified in the retailer graph above should
         be reviewed to determine if there is anything unusual about the
         transactions associated with these retailers and if these retailers
         should be referred to the appropriate investigative agency.

         As other anomalies are noted pertaining to retailers, the
         information should be forwarded to the appropriate investigative
         agency.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Full Benefit Withdrawal Transactions
        We identified all individual purchase transactions where at least
    the full monthly benefit amount awarded was withdrawn in a single
    purchase transaction. This could indicate the recipients were
    transferring their benefits to others for cash or other commodities, or
    they had other resources available indicating they may no longer be
    eligible for benefits. There were 96,367 recipients with 152,740 full
    benefit withdrawal transactions totaling $25,430,189.

      (i)  We prepared a graph showing all retailers utilized by recipients
                for full benefit withdrawaltransactions and the total
                number of these transactions per retailer to identify
                outliers.
    Full Benefit Withdrawal Transactions

      (ii)  Next, we identified all recipients with one purchase
                transaction that exceeded three times their benefit
                issuance amount, as identified in the table below. We
                performed this additional analysis as it could be
                reasonable to use 1 month's benefit issuance in one
                transaction; however, the use of three times the benefit
                issuance amount in one transaction would seem more unusual.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Recipients        Total Transactions         Total Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  274                      274                  $57,218
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          The ten highest dollar transactions were identified.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Transaction Date/  Monthly Benefit
       Recipient No.     Total Purchase         Time             Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 1              $1,323    3/4/2015 12:02              $194
                                                    p.m.
                 2              $1,281    2/20/2015 3:45              $194
                                                    p.m.
                 3              $1,273    5/26/2015 5:21              $194
                                                    a.m.
                 4              $1,242     6/2/2015 5:56              $156
                                                    a.m.
                 5              $1,108    3/4/2015 12:03              $194
                                                    p.m.
                 6              $1,073    3/29/2015 5:44              $194
                                                    p.m.
                 7              $1,063    5/22/2015 11:24             $194
                                                    a.m.
                 8              $1,027     6/2/2015 5:56              $194
                                                    a.m.
                 9                $898    6/25/2015 1:01              $163
                                                    a.m.
                10                $781    2/20/2015 1:12              $194
                                                    p.m.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Recommendation No. 7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Review the Full Food Assistance Balance Withdrawal Report
         to identify recipients with a significant number of full benefit
         withdrawal transactions and review the individual transactions to
         determine if there are any unusual patterns identified. If
         anomalies are identified, determine methods and implement
         procedures to investigate these recipients.

         If the recipient carries a large accumulated balance on
         their card, investigate the reason for the large balance as
         detailed in Recommendation No. 12 below.

         The outliers identified in the retailer graph above should
         be reviewed to determine if there is anything unusual about the
         transactions associated with these retailers and if these retailers
         should be referred to the appropriate investigative agency.

         As other anomalies are noted pertaining to retailers, the
         information should be forwarded to the appropriate investigative
         agency.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excessive PIN Attempts
        We identified all recipients who exceeded their allotted four PIN
    attempts (as determined by the Department). If four unsuccessful PIN
    attempts are made, the card is automatically locked and cannot be used
    until the recipient resets the PIN. If a recipient has an excessive
    number of unsuccessful PIN attempts, this could indicate the individual
    is not the rightful owner of the card. We identified a total of 7,938
    recipients with 18,878 unsuccessful PIN attempts; 880 of these
    recipients had an excessive number (more than four) of PIN attempts, as
    detailed below.
    Excessive (More Than Four) PIN Attempts

                              Recommendation No. 8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Implement procedures to review the Excessive PIN Attempts Report to
     identify recipients with a significant number of PIN attempts, and
     determine the reason for the excessive attempts. Consider reviewing
     EPPIC transaction history reports to identify any other unusual
     activity that may indicate an unauthorized individual was utilizing the
     card.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Invalid Card Attempts
        We identified all purchase transactions attempted on an invalid
    card (reported as lost, damaged, stolen, etc.). Transactions attempted
    on an invalid card could indicate an unauthorized individual attempted
    to use the card. There were a total of 12,906 excessive (more than
    four) transactions attempted on an invalid card relating to 1,898
    recipient accounts, as shown below:
    Excessive (More Than Four) Transactions Attempted on Invalid Card

                              Recommendation No. 9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Review the Transactions Attempted on Invalid Card Report to identify
     recipients with a significant number of transactions attempted on an
     invalid card assigned to them, and determine the reason for the
     excessive attempts. Consider reviewing EPPIC transaction history
     reports to identify any other unusual activity that may indicate an
     unauthorized individual was utilizing the card.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiple Consecutive Transactions
        We identified multiple purchase transactions occurring on one
    recipient account within 1 hour, shown in the table below, by month. If
    the card or benefits are being used excessively within a short amount
    of time, especially utilizing a single retailer, this could indicate
    the card is being exchanged for cash and/or being used by multiple
    unauthorized individuals.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Month      Retailers    Recipients     Transactions        Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January            1,921        2,628             15,835        $365,124
    February           1,686        2,211             13,245        $315,923
    March              1,887        2,570             15,561        $341,215
    April              1,890        2,576             15,529        $353,262
    May                2,114        2,875             16,363        $357,229
    June               2,144        2,887             16,387        $364,422
                ------------------------------------------------------------
      Total           11,642       15,747             92,920      $2,097,175
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (i)  We prepared a graph showing all retailers utilized by SNAP
                recipients for multiple transactions within 1 hour and the
                total number of these transactions per retailer to identify
                outliers.
    Multiple Transactions Within One Hour

      (ii)  We identified the top 10 recipients with the highest dollar
                amount of transactions within a 1 hour period during the 6
                month period tested.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     No. of 1       No. of
     Recipient No.   Transactions    hour time     Retailers   Amount of All
                                      periods       Visited     Transactions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               1              48              7             2        $2,343
               2              54              7            20        $2,335
               3              68              6            23        $2,079
               4              44              7            17        $1,920
               5              26              5             5        $1,879
               6              23              4             4        $1,825
               7              31              4             2        $1,707
               8              12              3             7        $1,671
               9               6              1             2        $1,555
              10              24              4             8        $1,545
                   ---------------------------------------------------------
      Total.......           336             48            90       $18,859
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (iii)  We analyzed an individual 1 hour period for Recipient No. 9 in
                our top 10. Below are the results.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Amount of
    Transaction No.    Transaction Date/Time     Retailer No.   Transaction
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                1         1/31/2015 7:57 p.m.              1           $201
                2         1/31/2015 8:01 p.m.              1           $189
                3         1/31/2015 8:04 p.m.              1           $269
                4         1/31/2015 8:42 p.m.              2           $262
                5         1/31/2015 8:49 p.m.              2           $262
                6         1/31/2015 8:52 p.m.              2           $372
                                                              --------------
      Total........                                                  $1,555
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Recommendation No. 10
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Review the Multiple Transactions Within 1 Hour Report to
         identify recipients with a significant amount of transactions
         within multiple 1 hour periods. Identify the retailers utilized in
         these instances to determine whether the same retailer was utilized
         during the period. If the same retailer is utilized multiple times
         within the same period, this could indicate the card is being
         exchanged for cash and/or used by multiple ineligible individuals.
         If anomalies are identified, determine methods and implement
         procedures to investigate these recipients.

         The outliers identified in the retailer graph above should
         be reviewed to determine if there is anything unusual about the
         transactions associated with these retailers and if these retailers
         should be referred to the appropriate investigative agency.

         As other anomalies are noted pertaining to retailers, the
         information should be forwarded to the appropriate investigative
         agency.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recipients and Retailers Identified on Multiple Reports
        Using all eight of the EPPIC reports noted above, we identified
    recipients and retailers that appeared on more than one of the reports.
    If a recipient or retailer appears on multiple reports, there is a
    higher possibility that fraud or other questionable activity is
    occurring. There were 151,360 recipients appearing on multiple reports,
    as follows.
    Recipients Identified on Multiple Reports

          There were 11,681 retailers appearing on multiple reports, as
                follows.
    Retailers Identified on Multiple Reports

                              Recommendation No. 11
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Utilizing all the standard EPPIC reports available,
         recipients and retailers appearing on multiple reports should be
         identified since this could be an indicator of fraudulent activity.
         Review the data periodically to identify outliers and other
         anomalies and investigate those occurrences.

         The 37 retailers identified in our testing on five reports
         should be referred to the appropriate authorities for
         investigation.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excessive Card Balances
        7 CFR 274.2(h) states:

              (1) If EBT accounts are inactive for 3 months or longer, the
            state agency may store such benefits offline.

                      (i) Benefits stored off-line shall be made available
                    upon reapplication or re-contact by the household;
                      (ii) The state agency shall attempt to notify the
                    household of this action before storage of the benefits
                    off-line and describe the steps necessary to bring the
                    benefits back on-line;

              (2) The state agency shall expunge benefits that have not
            been accessed by the household after a period of 1 year.
            Issuance reports shall reflect the adjustment to the state
            agency issuance totals to comply with monthly issuance
            reporting requirements prescribed under  274.4.
              (3) Procedures shall be established to permit the appropriate
            managers to adjust benefits that have already been posted to a
            benefit account prior to the household accessing the account;
            or, after an account has become dormant. The procedures shall
            also be applicable to removing stale accounts for off-line
            storage of benefits or when the benefits are expunged. Whenever
            benefits are expunged or stored off-line, the state agency
            shall document the date, amount of the benefits and storage
            location in the household case file.

        In addition, the Department indicated the EBT contract
    requirements, approved by FNS, state:
        Section 2.2.2.4  Benefit Expungement--
              The Contractor must track aging at both the account and
            benefit level. Each food assistance benefit begins aging at the
            time it becomes available to the client. The EBT account begins
            aging at the point that the first benefit becomes available.
            Subsequently, each time that the client completes a
            transaction, the account aging clock is reset to start anew,
            even if one or more benefits have been expunged.
              No benefits may be expunged until the account aging clock has
            reached 365 calendar days. Once the account has reached
            expungement age, only those benefits that have been available
            to the client for 365 or more calendar days shall be expunged.
            If one or more subsequent benefit authorizations for the same
            client account have been available to the client for less than
            365 calendar days, they are not expunged. They must remain
            online until each has reached full expungement age. If an
            account that has had all benefits expunged is reactivated
            because the client has again become eligible, the account must
            be treated in the same manner as a new account in terms of
            benefit aging and expungement timeframes.

        An excessive benefit balance carried on an EBT card could signify
    the benefit balance has accumulated more than a period of 1 year
    increasing the risk of noncompliance with requirements. This could also
    indicate the recipient had additional resources available and was no
    longer in need of the benefits, allowing the benefits to be distributed
    elsewhere. Using a listing of all recipients with card balances greater
    than $2,300 (nearly double the maximum benefit amount for a family of
    eight), we identified a total of 1,337 recipients with a balance
    greater than this threshold on their card during the audit period, as
    listed below:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Balance Range:          Total Recipients      Total Balance Carried
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        $2,300-$2,999                       706              $1,813,619
        $3,000-$3,999                       323              $1,104,199
        $4,000-$4,999                       135                $595,857
        $5,000-$5,999                        69                $374,777
        $6,000-$6,999                        40                $254,692
        $7,000-$7,999                        31                $230,454
        $8,000-$8,999                         6                 $50,765
        $9,000-$9,999                        14                $131,772
      $10,000-$10,999                         3                 $31,512
      $11,000-$11,999                         2                 $22,658
       $12,000-12,999                         2                 $24,685
      $13,000-$13,999                         1                 $13,827
      $14,000-$14,999                         1                 $14,496
      $15,000-$15,999                         0                       0
      $16,000-$16,999                         1                 $16,910
      $17,000-$17,999                         1                 $17,471
      $18,000-$18,999                         1                 $18,757
      $19,000-$19,999                         0                       0
      $20,000-$20,999                         1                 $20,610
                             -----------------------------------------------
      Total.................              1,337              $4,737,061
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        We also obtained information from the Department, provided by
    Xerox, for each of the 1,337 high balance recipients listed above to
    show when their EBT card was last utilized. We found the high balance
    recipients last accessed their account/used their card in the following
    calendar years:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Calendar Year
      Recipient's  Account       Total Recipients      Total Balance Carried
          Last Accessed
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 2012                         7                 $23,221
                 2013                        19                 $63,585
                 2014                        72                $248,640
                 2015                     1,165              $4,143,677
                    *                        74                $257,938
                             -----------------------------------------------
      Total.................              1,337              $4,737,061
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Date Not Provided.

        We reviewed a Xerox report documenting which recipients had
    benefits expunged during our audit period. Eight of the 26 (30.8%)
    recipients listed above who last accessed their accounts in 2012 and
    2013 were not listed on the expungement report covering our 6 month
    period. The Department provided further information to indicate
    benefits for these eight recipients had been fully expunged prior to
    our audit period. However, these recipients continued to be eligible
    based on the redeterminations performed by the counties and, therefore,
    continued to earn benefits. Since the contract agreement requires
    benefits to be available for 365 days before expungement, their
    balances continued to accumulate even though they were not being used.
    See the timeline below for further information for one of these eight
    recipients. In addition, the Department indicated that no date was
    available for the 74 recipients for which no date was provided because
    those recipients had not accessed their benefits since at least July
    2009 (the beginning date of the report provided). Of the 20 recipients
    selected for testing, ten were listed on the expungement report
    covering our 6 month period. In addition, the Department provided
    documentation for the other ten selected recipients from these 74 to
    show their benefits had been fully expunged prior to our audit period.
    Timeline of Activities for Recipient One of Eight

                              Recommendation No. 12
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Investigate the remaining 54 of the 74 accounts identified
         above where a date the account was last accessed was not provided
         and verify the card balances loaded over a year ago were expunged
         as required by 7 CFR 274.2(h)(2).

         Utilize the standard EPPIC report that includes all
         recipient cards that have not been utilized in a year, the date the
         account was last active, and the benefits expunged to assist in
         monitoring card balances. Ensure Xerox immediately expunged those
         benefits to comply with the requirements of 7 CFR 274.2(h)(2).

         Implement procedures as allowed in 7 CFR 272(h)(1) to store
         any benefits not utilized for 3 months off-line. Only reactivate
         the benefits upon reapplication or re-contact by the recipient.

         Inquiries should be made at the time of reapplication or re-
         contact to determine why benefits had not been used and whether
         additional income or resources are available to the recipient that
         had not been reported to ensure continued eligibility is
         appropriate.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPPIC Reports Use
        (A) We inquired with the Department to determine whether they were
    using the EPPIC reports provided by Xerox. Department personnel
    indicated they do not use the reports for monitoring purposes. They
    indicated it is the CDJFS' responsibility to generate and review EPPIC
    reports, investigate fraud allegations, and recoup overpayments from
    recipients. The Department indicated it conducts quarterly meetings
    with CDJFS investigators and provides technical assistance and training
    to the CDJFS pertaining to EPPIC report use and investigations.
        (B) We selected ten counties: Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, Holmes,
    Huron, Logan, Lucas, Montgomery, Muskingum, and Pickaway. We inquired
    with the CDJFS in these counties to determine:

      i.  Whether the CDJFS utilized the EPPIC reports;

      ii.  If sufficient and knowledgeable personnel were assigned to fraud
                identification and investigation;

      iii.  What procedures were in place for fraud identification and
                investigation;

      iv.  Whether training was provided by the Department;

      v.  If quarterly meetings were conducted with the Department; and,

      vi.  The steps that are taken when possible fraud is identified.

            Based on the responses provided by the ten selected CDJFS:

           There are no procedures in place to review EPPIC reports
                to identify anom-
                  alies for possible investigation. Investigations are not
                initiated until the
                  CDJFS receives a complaint or referral. At that point,
                the EPPIC reports
                  are utilized only as they relate to the specific
                recipient under investigation.

           The Department does provide training and conducts
                quarterly meetings
                  with the CDJFS for reviewing recipient family, income,
                and other informa-
                  tion to identify potential fraud during the application
                process. The Depart-
                  ment also provides training on how to handle a complaint
                and the cor-
                  responding investigation. However, the Department does
                not provide train-
                  ing pertaining to EPPIC report monitoring and how to
                identify anomalies
                  and other outliers related to fraud and misuse of the EBT
                cards.

           Seven of ten CDJFS either do not have personnel
                dedicated full time to
                  SNAP fraud identification and investigation, have only
                one investigator, or
                  have had significant turnover and vacant positions in
                their fraud section.

                             Overall Recommendations
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since resources are often limited at the CDJFS, the Department
     should take a more proactive role in identifying possible fraud related
     to EBT cards and centralize the function. Centralizing this function at
     the Department level would allow specific personnel to become more
     experienced and adept at identifying and investigating anomalies and
     help focus the resources of both state and county personnel. In
     addition to the recommendations made throughout this report, we
     recommend the Department:

         Regularly review EPPIC reports and identify anomalies and
         other outliers for investigation. The information could then be
         passed to the CDJFS or appropriate authorities for investigation.

         Provide additional training to CDJFS personnel to help them
         better understand the EPPIC report data and how to proceed with
         investigations. The training materials provided should be
         maintained and readily made available to the CDJFS for reference.

         Conduct meetings with CDJFS personnel periodically to
         ensure all questions and concerns are addressed and investigations
         are being performed properly.

         Update and formally document the policies and procedures
         regarding the SNAP eligibility and fraud review/investigation
         process, including any changes made as a result of these
         recommendations. Communicate these policies and procedures to all
         affected staff, both state and county. Periodically review and
         update the policies and procedures to ensure they remain current
         and are sufficient.

         Ensure all procedures completed are documented and the
         documentation is maintained in accordance with established records
         retention policies.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Supplemental Nutrition
            Assistance Program--SNAP Franklin County Clerk's Certification
        This is a true and correct copy of the report which is required to
    be filed in the Office of the Auditor of State pursuant to Section
    117.26, Revised Code, and which is filed in Columbus, Ohio.

    Clerk of the Bureau.

    Certified June 28, 2016.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Yost. I appreciate that.
        The chair would remind Members that they will be recognized
    for questioning in order of seniority for Members who were here
    at the start of the hearing. After that, Members will be
    recognized in order of arrival. And I appreciate Members'
    understanding.
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Brown, help me understand. The $38 floor is unique to
    SNAP, and it is figured into the 3.7 percent error rate, or is
    it not? Which is it?
        Ms. Brown. Well, what we understand from the threshold is
    it has come up and down over the years, but this most recent
    change gave us a good indicator that it probably did have an
    effect on the error rate. The rate had been going down for
    years, and when the threshold was changed from $50----
        The Chairman. No, no, I mean, mechanically, errors inside
    the threshold are they included in the error rate for the 3.66,
    or are they not?
        Ms. Brown. Right.
        The Chairman. Just the errors that we do find.
        Ms. Brown. Yes. The errors that are below the threshold are
    not included in that error rate.
        The Chairman. All right, so the error rate of 3.66 is
    understated by, I think your testimony said 38 percent?
        Ms. Brown. Yes. There is a percentage, let me double check
    that just to make sure, but, yes, 38 percent.
        The Chairman. Yes, that would equate to a 5.1 percent error
    rate if we included the safe harbor transactions?
        Ms. Brown. I don't think you can make that connection,
    because what we actually did was we looked at the percent of
    errors that were under the threshold, and then we looked at the
    percent of dollars that those errors made up.
        The Chairman. Okay, so help me understand.
        Ms. Brown. It is complicated.
        The Chairman. The 3.66 then would be understated, it is
    fair to say we don't know how much it is, but it is understated
    by some amount.
        Ms. Brown. Correct.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Ms. Brown. Yes.
        The Chairman. All right. I appreciate that. Are there other
    means-tested programs that have a failsafe like this in their
    error rates.
        Of all the other ones that we are comparing to, they track
    all the errors?
        Ms. Brown. We only looked at the four and SNAP was the only
    one that had that.
        The Chairman. Okay. I appreciate that.
        Ms. Shahin, would you walk us through the differences, when
    we start talking about fraud and error rates, give us the
    specifics between those two, and trafficking, let me throw that
    one in, error rates that are touted as being low versus fraud,
    which is not included in those error rates, I don't believe.
    Would you walk us through that briefly?
        Ms. Shahin. Yes, sir, and thank you so much, because there
    can be confusion over that.
        The error rate relates to improper payment. It could be an
    over-issuance or an under-issuance that is added together, it
    is an improper payment. The person received too much or they
    received too little.
        When that happens, it happens at the state administrative,
    and we look to see where did that error come from. We find that
    about 62 percent of those mistakes or errors come from the
    state agency, about 38 percent of them come from the client.
    Just to give you an example, the state agency might not take
    action on a reported income change in the timeframe required,
    or a change in household composition. Mostly it is--Kay is
    right, most of it is related to income, which becomes more
    dynamic the more you have a population that is working. And we
    have seen a great deal of increase in the working families.
        The Chairman. Right. So then USDA defines fraud then as
    what? Retailers and----
        Ms. Shahin. Yes. Fraud, we are talking really about an
    intentional, purposeful action on the part of a client or a
    retailer. Trafficking is an excellent example of that. That is
    when a client, and a retail is the most common kind, they
    collude together to say ``I want cash for my SNAP benefits. I
    will give you 50 on the dollar, 80 on the dollar.'' Then the
    retailer gets the full amount into their account, and the----
        The Chairman. In this example, the retailer would charge
    $100 on the card and give the recipient back some percentage of
    that?
        Ms. Shahin.--it could be $50, $70, $80 whatever agreement
    they came to, yes.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Recently, there was in the news a very large bust, $13 to
    $16 million, and it appeared to be conducted from storefronts
    that didn't even a business there. Is there not a site visit
    associated with the retailer approval process?
        Ms. Shahin. Yes, sir, there is a site visit that is
    involved, and we have made a lot of improvements actually in
    the area of denying stores up-front because we are doing better
    work in that area. Are you talking about the one down near
    Miami?
        The Chairman. It was in Florida, yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Shahin. Opa Locka. Yes.
        The Chairman. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Shahin. So that is a really good example of the work of
    state law enforcement, our USDA OIG. Our agency actually were
    the first to get the hotline call. We did some investigation.
    It looked like trafficking was happening. It was referred over
    to OIG and they said, ``Yes, this is a criminal case we want to
    go after.'' So it takes a little bit more time to get those
    done because they are taking criminal action.
        The Chairman. Right, but my understanding of that one is
    the storefronts were just that; there were no businesses
    associated with it. There wasn't actually a retail shop there
    for folks to actually buy food.
        Ms. Shahin. Yes. That is not the way I understand it but
    that is really good to know, so I can go back and check on
    that.
        [The information referred to is located on p. 915.]
        The Chairman. All right.
        Ms. Shahin. Okay?
        The Chairman. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. My time
    has expired.
        Ms. Shahin. Sure. Can I just mention one thing on the
    threshold?
        The Chairman. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Shahin. Would you mind? On the threshold, I just----
        The Chairman. No, I don't mind.
        Ms. Shahin. On the threshold, the $37 was actually a part
    of the 2014 Farm Bill. So that threshold exists in the law.
        The Chairman. Right. No, I understand.
        Ms. Shahin. And I do want to make sure that folks know that
    while it doesn't count in the error rate, the states must
    provide us all of their errors, whether they are below the $37
    or not, because they have to take action on anything they find
    in an over- or underpayment.
        The Chairman. Even if it is below the threshold.
        Ms. Shahin. Even if it is below, yes, sir. Absolutely. It
    is not in the error rate but it is a part of their reporting,
    and they must take action on it.
        The Chairman. All right, thank you. I appreciate that
    clarification.
        Ms. Shahin. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Ranking Member Peterson.
        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Shahin, I mentioned in my opening remarks that I am not
    the big fan of having these different standards. And I realize
    that in most cases it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
    But, in North Dakota, people qualify for benefits that, if they
    were in my district in Minnesota, they don't. It is just not
    right, in my opinion. One question I have is with the LIHEAP
    situation. Minnesota is not one of those states where we had a
    lot of people on this dollar LIHEAP payout so that they were
    qualifying, and we raised it to $20, didn't we? Is that what we
    did? And CBO was saying at the time that the states wouldn't
    spend the $20 to qualify people. So what ended up happening?
    Did it knock a lot of people off the rolls that were on there
    before, or not, or what happened?
        Ms. Shahin. Yes, on LIHEAP, and I am not anywhere near as
    good keeping numbers in my head, so let me just say I will go
    back and check and make sure I did this right, but I believe
    there were about 17 states that were doing the nominal, and I
    believe around 12 to 13 went ahead and brought their nominal
    LIHEAP up to the $20 to meet the law as it was provided for.
    The remainder did not. Once again, as you are suggesting, these
    are options and choices that we do have for states in terms of
    their flexibilities and ways they can approach the program. We
    have the national standards, but there are places and
    flexibilities that provide for that kind of thing.
        [The information referred to is located on p. 915.]
        Mr. Peterson. In the categorical eligibility, which
    apparently was done to simplify the administration, that was
    the idea that it was supposed to be the same as welfare
    benefits. When we changed the welfare law back in 1996 and we
    allowed the states to do different levels, and all that sort of
    stuff. In the 2014 bill, I had discussions, and I brought up
    that we should raise the bottom 130 percent to some other
    number, and make it standard across the whole country and
    eliminate this. And some people didn't want to do that because,
    even though they were from states that would have actually cut
    people off of benefits, they were against it because it made it
    look like they were raising benefits. It got in the whole
    political thing. My question is, if we had a situation where we
    had one standard and that was it, and the states couldn't have
    a different level, would that eliminate some of these errors,
    would that reduce the error rate, or would that improve the
    situation or not?
        Ms. Shahin. Actually, this might be a good question for Kay
    as well, but I do know that with fraud-based categorical
    eligibility it can reduce errors because of the streamlined
    administration, there are certain things, you are using a
    different program that you already have in your state, that is
    already means-tested, and you are using its income and asset
    limits for determining the eligibility of the SNAP participant.
    But in the end, you still have to work the case, you still have
    to determine what the benefit is, and you still have to get
    really close to that 100 percent net to be eligible for a
    benefit. In other words, you might be eligible for the program
    but not for the benefit because of that. So that is kind of an
    important distinction as well.
        It can have a positive effect on the error rate in terms of
    reducing it. I think that Kay has some thoughts on how it also
    might be a policy that can increase error rates.
        Mr. Peterson. Well, yes.
        Ms. Brown. Right. When we looked at this at broad-based
    categorical eligibility in particular, we did find that it did
    have some aspects that really helped simplify the process of
    determining eligibility, including the fact that many states
    were no longer looking at assets that applicants had when they
    came to apply. But the other side of that is, because states
    could go up to a higher income level for eligibility, they were
    allowing more people who had earned income to receive benefits,
    and that is one of the areas that is the highest likelihood to
    cause errors.
        Mr. Peterson. So both of you think it kind of cuts both
    ways?
        Ms. Brown. Yes. We said it had a mixed effect.
        Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Lucas, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the Ranking Member
    will remember in the joys of the 2012, 2013, and 2014 Farm
    Bill. There were a number of times when we tried to do things
    in a variety of places, in a really logical fashion, and that
    created the most problems. Trying to be reasonable, rational,
    and logical. It didn't mean that we weren't trying to do the
    right things, it just meant that, in a few places, some of our
    colleagues preferred the irrational to the rational. By the
    way, I like all my colleagues.
        That said, Ms. Shahin, would you discuss for a moment the
    historic nature, the Food and Nutrition Service has always been
    responsible for retail fraud. The states have been tasked with
    looking at individual fraud cases, and as we mentioned here in
    a variety of areas, things changed in the 2014 Farm Bill
    included the fraud reduction pilot projects to expand that
    collaborative effort between state and Federal Government to
    prevent and detect retailer fraud. That was necessary because
    they increased the significant number of authorized retailers
    to participate in the program. And it provided states with some
    dedicated resources to help maintain that integrity. Can you
    expand for a moment on how USDA has implemented those pilot
    projects for a couple of minutes?
        Ms. Shahin. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. The
    provision in the farm bill, one of the ways that we found that
    we could very quickly implement that is that we already have
    relationships with a lot of states through what are called
    State Law Enforcement Bureaus. And we call them SLEBs because
    we love acronyms, but also because it is much shorter. Those
    SLEB agreements, we looked at those to see how we could enhance
    those agreements to make them more useful, more effective, and
    use them to take on these pilot ideas, because we already have
    them in place. We added some aspects about the SLEBs actually
    working with us and helping us on the recipient fraud side.
    That was really important because if you will remember, the
    provision said they had to be doing a good job on recipient
    fraud, and that is not something that is real common across the
    country. This really helped us to put that in to get the SLEBs
    working with us on the recipient and the retailer side, and
    also provides for giving them a reporting mechanism so that we
    could see how we are doing.
        So that is how we have implemented it. We have SLEBs in New
    York and California, and Texas, a few other large places where
    that urban environment that you were looking for us to include,
    we have that in there as well. So that is how we are
    implementing it.
        On the funding for states on recipient fraud, we have put
    out about $10 million in grants to states, competitive grants
    to states, to improve their recipient integrity.
        Mr. Lucas. Is it fair to say that you see value in the
    authority that has been given to states to investigate retail
    fraud, and would it be a good idea to increase even more their
    authority to pursue that avenue?
        Ms. Shahin. The jury is probably still out a little bit. We
    need a little bit more time working with states. I think that
    the key here is really, Mr. Lucas, it is two sides of a coin,
    and if we are doing all this work on the retailer side and we
    aren't taking care of the recipient side, we are not going to
    stop the fraud and trafficking. You have to hit both sides of
    this coin. And so we would really like to see states putting
    their efforts--I know it is hard. I know it is hard on the
    recipient trafficking side, but we are working with some to get
    some tools out there for them. The GAO audit gave us a lot of
    opportunity. We are improving our reporting mechanism that way
    too. I would like to see us make a little bit more headway
    first in that area.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you. Auditor Yost, let's talk for just a
    moment. Your comments about Ohioans using their benefits in
    Texas and Florida, and places like that, those are the kind of
    stories that stir up the public back home and make it more
    difficult to provide the assistance to our fellow citizens.
    Expand, if you would, about the nature of that. And I assume
    you would agree that is an alarming thing from your earlier
    comments.
        Mr. Yost. There may be individual hard luck fact patterns
    that would justify it.
        Mr. Lucas. We all go to funerals. Yes.
        Mr. Yost. But, the numbers we are seeing raise questions
    about the integrity of the administration of the program.
    Obviously, if you are living in Florida, you shouldn't be
    getting your EBT card out of Ohio. We saw almost $600,000 of
    Ohio benefits being spent in tiny Marshall, Minnesota. Fewer
    than 14,000 people. That number, as a former prosecutor, just
    makes me go, ``Huh.''
        Mr. Lucas. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Scott, 5 minutes.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It might be good for us to understand the purpose of these
    hearings, and the purpose of these hearings is to see if
    cutting the food stamp program is the answer to the issues of
    fraud and the error rates.
        Now, my concern is this, that when we come to whatever
    conclusions we come to, that we cannot determine how we fix
    this problem with just an attitude of we have to cut the food
    stamp program. Everything that I have heard has indicated that,
    whether it be the error rates, the overpayment rates, those are
    internal, structural, administrative issues. When it comes to
    the other area of fraud, that is on the outside. That is an
    enforcement issue.
        And so if we back away from this and look at it for what it
    is, the answer to fraud, the answer to the error rates are all
    management of our resources, to be able to correct those, not
    on wholesale attitude because somebody talks about 1,000 people
    from the dead. Well, that is neither the dead folks' fault or
    whoever is benefitting. If you know that that is the case, then
    you structurally change that.
        Because here is my concern, if we just make our
    manifestation as the answer to this problem is totally on
    cutting the food stamp program, we miss the whole issue. Ninety
    percent of all the households that get food stamps have
    children, have seniors, have disabled, and a growing number of
    veterans. When you start dealing with finding solutions to
    these problems, the panacea for that is not cutting the
    program, it is putting the resources where they are needed to
    correct it, to enforce against these abuses.
        And so I wanted to ask you all on the panel, don't you
    agree that what I am saying is the best approach for this,
    going forward, and that is particularly because if 90 percent
    of these folks have people in that household who have no other
    means. We have 1.7 million veterans receiving food stamp
    benefits. Somebody somewhere ought to say why is that. Isn't
    this a structural problem? And that is growing.
        I just want to really use my little time here to stress how
    we really go at this, because there are some issues here in
    fraud, but cutting the food stamp program is not the answer to
    that. It is putting the resources in place to enforce that
    situation and get these people who are doing that. If we have
    the error rate and the overpayment, that is within the USDA.
    Perhaps they don't have the resources, the manpower to
    effectively correct the situation.
        Where am I going wrong on this, any one of you, and where
    am I going right?
        Ms. Shahin. If it is okay with you, Mr. Scott, I will
    start.
        I think that the key point that you are making there that
    identifying the problem is step one. Step two is fixing it.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes.
        Ms. Shahin. And that is the key, and that is what we need
    to look towards in any of these. A payment error rate, it may
    be low but that doesn't mean it is low enough. We should always
    be looking to do better. We should always be looking to
    improve. I honestly believe that the states believe this and
    want this as much as I do. I believe that they care in this
    program. Partnering with our states to make sure that when we
    identify problems, we get those fixed. That is critical. That
    is on the improper payment side of it.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well, let me ask you this. I
    only have 15 seconds, because the
        Ms. Shahin. Yes, sir. Okay, sorry.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia.--the purpose of this hearing is
    reauthorization of the food stamp is coming up, and one of the
    reasons we are having all these hearings on food stamps is to
    determine whether or not cuts in the program or across the
    board, without understanding the intricacies of what you all
    have explained, is the reason. Do you think cutting the program
    just arbitrarily will fix any of these things, or a better
    allocation of resources?
        Ms. Shahin. I think that SNAP is a program that works and
    works well. I think that the various hearings you have had, you
    have heard a lot of support for a program that does work, that
    meets its goals. That doesn't mean it can't be better. That
    doesn't mean there aren't things we can do to make it better.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Right.
        Ms. Shahin. We should always be striving for that.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Gibbs, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yost, thank you for doing this work on the audit. We
    have seen in Ohio news reports about the excessive card
    balances. Seems like over a certain period of time the balances
    might make sense, it is commonsense things. Unusual card
    activity. You talk about 1 hour transactions, people spending
    $1,000 in less than an hour, or the unusual card activity where
    you have even balances and the same balances after every month,
    on the same time, same date of following months. In your audit,
    were you able to determine if there were any triggers, does
    USDA have any triggers or mechanisms that red flag these so
    that there is oversight to bring this back, or did your audit
    look at that or not?
        Mr. Yost. Thank you, Representative Gibbs. The key, I
    believe, is on the retail side. I have run a lot of
    investigations in my time as a county prosecutor, and I have
    done both recipient fraud cases, which are very, very difficult
    to prove, and we never really get repayment because these folks
    are typically in need to begin with. Fraud doesn't work unless
    it is monetized, and that requires the retailer. The bang for
    your buck is to organize this around data mining to find
    exactly the kinds of indicia that you just cited in your
    question, and to use those indicators to open high quality,
    targeted investigations on the folks that are providing the
    dollars for this type----
        Mr. Gibbs. Let me go to USDA, Ms. Shahin. Does USDA have
    any protocols in place that red-flags when they see unusual
    activity, or that a reasonable person could say, ``Hey, this
    doesn't make sense?''
        Ms. Shahin. Yes.
        Mr. Gibbs. What is the process?
        Ms. Shahin. Yes, sir. I am so excited you asked this
    question because we definitely do. We actually have what we
    call our alert system, and it is looking at eight million
    transactions around the country every day, and it is making
    connections and looking and doing these data analytic things.
    And so we have a watch list, we have the ALERT system that
    gives us information, and then we have people who then look at
    that information. We can actually make cases for trafficking
    just by the data alone. If we can't do it that way, we will
    send investigators out as well and go undercover. But we can
    even do it from the data.
        Mr. Gibbs. Do your investigators go out to the retail
    stores where you see this happening and audit their records and
    investigate them when it is flagged?
        Ms. Shahin. They go undercover is what they do. It is not
    really an audit of their paperwork, it is an undercover to try
    and see if they can get them--well, that sounds bad--but they
    go in to see, are you going to let me sell you my benefits, or
    let me buy something that I shouldn't be able to buy, because I
    can only buy food with this card, but if you let me buy
    something else we have a problem. So they do those kind of
    things. But the thing that I wanted to mention that is very
    exciting and helpful, maybe for Mr. Yost, is that we give
    states our list of disqualified retailers so that they can go
    in and look at those stores and see who of their recipients
    shopped there, and then look at those and see, ``Okay, do I see
    any transactions here that look weird.'' The kind of
    information that Mr. Yost has in his report is exactly the kind
    of stuff we are looking for states to do, to use their EBT
    vender to get reports and get the kind of activity and bring
    these things together.
        Mr. Gibbs. Okay, my time is going to run out. I want to----
        Ms. Shahin. I am sorry, I am excited.
        Mr. Gibbs. That I all right. Is there cross-referencing
    between states of participants to make sure that we don't have
    people in Ohio that are also receiving benefits in Illinois,
    are we doing cross-referencing checks with the technology?
        Ms. Shahin. Right. Now then, I don't know if you want me to
    talk about out-of-state transactions, or if you want me to talk
    about duplicate participation.
        Mr. Gibbs. I want to make sure that----
        Ms. Shahin. But the duplicate----
        Mr. Gibbs.--if one is not signed up for food stamps help in
    Ohio----
        Ms. Shahin. Yes.
        Mr. Gibbs.--but then somehow I have an Illinois address of
    a relative in Chicago, I can sign up so I can draw down,
    illegally, of course.
        Ms. Shahin. Commit fraud is what you are you talking about.
    Absolutely. What we ask on the high balances or the out-of-
    state transactions, or any of that, we ask states to take a
    look at those on a regular basis. Ohio actually has a pretty
    good system in place.
        Mr. Gibbs. But is there cross-referencing between states?
        Ms. Shahin. Yes. Now, the cross-reference between states,
    we actually just finished a pilot of five southeastern states,
    it is called the National Accuracy Clearinghouse. And that
    actually looked at doing checks for duplicate participation
    among the states. And we have had very promising results from
    that. In fact, we sent a report to Congress in May, and we are
    looking at what our next steps are going to be on that because
    it is real-time data. Mr. Yost mentioned Public Assistance
    Reporting Information System, PARIS. That is not real-time
    data, so this is a real-time data kind of thing, and depending
    on if the states are using it and putting the information in,
    it can be very, very effective.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Walz, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all the
    witnesses for being here. In the spirit of trying to find a
    balance between compassion, smart economic policy, and being
    good stewards of taxpayer dollars, that is our responsibility,
    because Mr. Yost, you are correct that if a dollar is lost to
    either fraud or error, that is a dollar not going to its
    intended purpose, and it is critical to try and balance some of
    these things.
        Ms. Shahin, if I could ask, it is my understanding after
    the OIG report you are taking 50 states and all the
    territories, you are doing a quality control measurement
    process by the end of the year, is that correct?
        Ms. Shahin. That is correct. That is correct.
        Mr. Walz. Has that been done before?
        Ms. Shahin. It hasn't. No, this is the first time that we
    have dug quite as deep as we are with the----
        Mr. Walz. What are you going to be looking at? Just if you
    can give me the 50,000 view on that.
        Ms. Shahin. Sure. Sure. We are looking doing a QC review,
    can I give a little bit of history first?
        Mr. Walz. Sure.
        Ms. Shahin. We don't have much time. Anyway, states do a
    sample of their cases. They pull that sample and then the QC
    reviewer is going to look at that case in that sample month and
    see if the benefit that they are receiving in that month is
    correct. They are going to have to look at the original month
    as well, so there is a lot of work that has to go into that. We
    do a Federal re-review as well.
        We started seeing some things that were happening that gave
    us pause. Then OIG did their audit and that gave us more pause.
    We started going in to look at states to see if they were
    complying with some of our rules, and the concern was the
    introduction of any kind of bias. Now, bias doesn't have to be
    intentional. It could be totally unintentional. That is not the
    point. It is a bias that is introduced that we are going to
    have to adjust for. These reviews, we are going in to dig
    really deep and make sure that there is all the documentation
    in the file that should be, and if there is not, ask the state
    to do a corrective action that makes sure that we are getting
    all of the documentation, that the use of things like error
    review committees, that they are done properly as after-the-
    fact, as a learning mechanism, not a before-the-fact, as a
    mitigation of the errors. All kinds of things.
        Mr. Walz. And it is your belief that this QC review and
    these type of procedures will help the states and help you
    reduce those error rates and those fraud rates even further?
        Ms. Shahin. I absolutely do believe that what we are doing
    right now will get us to the right place in determining what
    our improper payment rate is.
        Mr. Walz. Does this have a----
        Ms. Shahin. Absolutely.
        Mr. Walz. Does reducing this fraud have the same quality as
    many things? If you are attacking a problem, the first part of
    it, even the first 90 percent, seems to be easier, and then you
    get to the last bit it gets harder and harder as you get
    smaller. And we should strive for zero. I think that is the
    goal we should all have.
        My question is, are the fraud or the errors that are taking
    place, now that it is a relatively small number, we are talking
    97 percent correct, three percent roughly in there, does it get
    much harder to get after that three percent, or is it the same
    type of activity that was done before that we are just better
    at catching it?
        Ms. Shahin. I think that, first off, I would really want to
    emphasize that we are talking improper payments. So this really
    isn't fraud. There may be a small----
        Mr. Walz. That is right.
        Ms. Shahin.--but this is really that they are giving people
    the right amount. I do think that the lower it gets, the harder
    it is to hone in on what we can do to make it better. That
    doesn't mean that we don't do that. I would say that also
    states have done an extraordinary job over the last 10 or 20
    years, actually, in doing a lot of things to bring that error
    rate down. Things like technology, using technology, doing
    business process improvements, the simplified policies that
    Congress has made available to them has been very important
    because that also----
        Mr. Walz. That brings me to this point. Mr. Yost brought up
    something, and I do think people are kind of baffled by this
    and I do think it makes them a little skeptical. The payments
    after death, or whatever, is it a requirement to run those data
    matches like they did?
        Ms. Shahin. Thank you. Actually, yes, they have to run them
    a minimum of once per year.
        Mr. Walz. Could Ohio run them more if they wanted to?
        Ms. Shahin. They certainly could. Absolutely. You can run
    it as often as you want.
        Mr. Walz. Mr. Yost, what would preclude you from running
    that, say, quarterly? You would catch it sooner then.
        Mr. Yost. Actually, in the State of Ohio it does get run
    more frequently. Those are referred to the counties and they
    simply don't have the resources to follow up with them.
        Mr. Walz. Yes. And my last question, just because you
    brought up a good point, and I heard you say a community in
    Minnesota, and your numbers were pretty staggering that that
    would hit that. That seems to me to be one of those situations.
    Has somebody gone out there and see who is physically there and
    what is actually happening in that, because it must be one
    retailer at one place? I don't want to jump to conclusions, and
    I am glad my colleague said that. People travel out-of-state
    for family emergencies, they travel, just because you are
    hungry doesn't mean you don't go to a funeral, or you don't go
    somewhere to see a relative. But when a number like that comes
    up, that suspends all belief. Do you get to go out there? If I
    could just ask on that. Did somebody----
        Mr. Yost. We did not.
        Mr. Walz. Okay.
        Mr. Yost. We did not.
        Mr. Walz. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Davis, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
    witnesses.
        Ms. Brown, if I could start with you. Is USDA doing enough
    to address actually even more recipient fraud? I know this has
    been brought up. Can you give us your take on some of the
    solutions that you think USDA can implement, or solutions you
    think we might be able to implement?
        Ms. Brown. Well, it is interesting, I was trying to think
    back, when I started doing this work in 2006, the main focus
    was on retailer fraud, and we started to pester USDA to do a
    little bit more on recipient fraud. And starting in about 2011
    they really did begin to step up and take some action, because
    what we saw was you can address it at the retailer level, but
    we really felt like there needed to be a focus on the recipient
    level as well.
        We have seen them make some very good progress in this
    area, and our recommendations to them have been on ways that
    they can continue to improve their focus on recipient fraud,
    and a lot of that is the kinds of things that they did in Ohio
    where they are looking at data analytics, and trying to link
    different clues together to help them identify fraud.
        Mr. Davis. And which states, top three, do you think are
    doing the best job of identifying fraud?
        Ms. Brown. Well, we only looked at 11 when we looked at
    that, and each of them had strengths and weaknesses. I know
    that some states focus more of their resources on having more
    investigators to look at whether the information that
    applicants provide is accurate, but I am not sure that we have
    an answer on how effective that has been.
        Mr. Davis. Okay. Mr. Yost, what changes do you recommend to
    Federal law to allow state auditors to conduct more thorough
    and meaningful reviews of SNAP spending?
        Mr. Yost. There are three broad categories. The first is a
    series of just technical changes that are listed in our report.
    There are some useful improvements that could be made at the
    Federal structure as it exists. The second is to allow
    purchase-level data to the states. For example, the $1,500 in 1
    hour purchase, over six transactions, we have no idea what they
    bought. There are some reasons why knowing what is purchased
    and where can help us to lead to those that are monetizing
    benefits.
        Mr. Davis. Not to limit what they can purchase, just
    knowing what they did purchase. Right?
        Mr. Yost. Yes, exactly. What they did purchase.
        Mr. Davis. I mean it seems like it would be obvious, since
    we all have those rewards cards and we go to the grocery store,
    and they seem to print out the coupons of everything that I
    buy.
        Mr. Yost. Yes.
        Mr. Davis. The technology is already there.
        Mr. Yost. The database is there, the information exists. I
    do not have access to it. Neither do my colleagues.
        And finally, because of the difficulty in structuring these
    rules, block granting this to the state makes a great deal of
    sense because we will have a variety of innovations. When the
    Federal Government makes a mistake on making a very hard
    decision, and these are hard decisions, these are hard-luck
    stories, the iron law of unintended consequences means that
    everybody in the country suffers. If we allow the states to do
    it, when a state gets it wrong, only the people in that state
    are affected, and the innovations, the success stories are
    there with empirical proof for everybody else to pick up on.
        Mr. Davis. I agree. Anything that you would also recommend
    we do at our level?
        Mr. Yost. Thank you. I hope that you will find our report
    useful.
        Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. I am sure we will. And I will
    yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Fudge, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
    all for being here today.
        And forgive me if I sound somewhat concerned, I am, since
    this is our 16th SNAP hearing. I wonder if we do anything other
    than deal with SNAP in this Committee.
        Mr. Yost, I am obviously from Ohio. Thank you especially
    for being here today. But let me just ask you. You mentioned in
    your testimony, as well as in your written testimony, you
    suggest there are hundreds of millions of dollars of possible
    fraud in our program in Ohio, but you really have no basis to
    say that. If you look at the fact that balances on a card are
    not fraudulent necessarily. If you look at the fact that,
    heaven forbid, somebody would travel to Florida, a poor person,
    certainly they should leave their neighborhoods. If you look at
    the fact that you have nothing to tie one thing to another, how
    do you make a suggestion that there is over $100 million in
    fraud in the State of Ohio? I am having problems figuring that
    one out.
        Mr. Yost. What I said was millions, which would mean more
    than $2 million. I would not suggest that----
        Ms. Fudge. Okay, that is fine. So tell me how do you draw
    that conclusion?
        Mr. Yost. And the basis for that is the multiplicity of
    structural weaknesses in the management of the program. We are
    spending $2\1/2\ billion. Now, I want to reiterate that that
    doesn't mean that there should be cuts to the program----
        Ms. Fudge. No, I didn't ask that question. Let me just ask
    this question.
        Mr. Yost. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Fudge. How much actual fraud did you find?
        Mr. Yost. We were not looking for actual fraud, ma'am. The
    purpose of the audit was to test the structure.
        Ms. Fudge. Why would you even make a statement about how
    much fraud you think there is if that wasn't the purpose of the
    audit?
        Mr. Yost. Because I have been asked numerous times why do
    these structural matters, what do these structural weaknesses
    mean. I am trying to give it a sense of the order of magnitude.
        Ms. Fudge. What did it cost us to do the audit?
        Mr. Yost. I don't recall the precise number, ma'am.
        Ms. Fudge. Well, from a report from the Columbus Dispatch,
    they indicate that there was actually about $31,000 in fraud
    found, and that the audit cost $48,000. I am just trying to get
    to the point to figure out what it is you are trying to tell
    us, because I can't figure that out from what you wrote or what
    you said. At one point you are saying you weren't trying to
    find fraud, but that is basically all you have been talking
    about is fraud. I am still having a problem making the
    connection.
        Let me just ask this question. Do you audit other Federal
    programs?
        Mr. Yost. Yes, ma'am, under the Federal Single Audit Act,
    we do the Federal single audit for all Federal programs.
        Ms. Fudge. What have you found in other programs?
        Mr. Yost. That is a very broad question. Can you help me
    understand what you are looking for?
        Ms. Fudge. This is a very broad statement. Have you found
    fraud in Medicare or Medicaid, and at what level?
        Mr. Yost. Sure. We find misspending in a variety of
    programs. We issued a report last year about some in the
    Department of Education.
        Ms. Fudge. Are you concerned about those as much as you are
    concerned about this?
        Mr. Yost. I am concerned about all of the misspending I
    find, ma'am.
        Ms. Fudge. What about crop insurance, what has your audit
    found about that?
        Mr. Yost. I don't know that we have ever looked at crop
    insurance, and I don't know what the risks associated on it
    are.
        [The information referred to is located on p. 916.]
        Ms. Fudge. Ohio is an agricultural state. It is a Federal
    program.
        Mr. Yost. I am sure that it is. I don't know if we have
    looked at it.
        Ms. Fudge. I am truly not trying to give you a hard time, I
    am just trying to determine how you come to a conclusion that
    there is significant fraud in the State of Ohio without any
    basis upon which to make that conclusion.
        Mr. Yost. I disagree that there is no basis, ma'am. Our
    examination----
        Ms. Fudge. Well, that was the first question I asked you,
    what are you basing it on?
        Mr. Yost. And then you cut me off. I told you that the
    systems that we found, the weaknesses suggest that, the fact of
    the matter is nobody is looking at this stuff. When matches
    come back to the counties, they are under-resourced and unable
    to pursue it. The data mining happened before.
        Ms. Fudge. But again, you have no proof.
        Mr. Yost. We actually put it together. And when you look at
    the money that is being spent on even-dollar transactions,
    $1,500 of groceries in 1 hour, ma'am. Really?
        Ms. Fudge. And what percentage of the----
        Mr. Yost. If that doesn't sound like fraud----
        Ms. Fudge.--total is that? What percentage of the total is
    $1,500?
        Mr. Yost. It is an example that is illustrated----
        Ms. Fudge. What what percentage is $1,500 of the total
    money spent on food stamps in the State of Ohio?
        Mr. Yost. Once again, ma'am, that was not the focus of our
    program.
        Ms. Fudge. I am just asking a question. You raised the
    $1,500, I didn't.
        Mr. Yost. As an example to explain what my basis is. If you
    look at the even-dollar transactions slide from our program----
        Ms. Fudge. Mr. Yost, I am asking the questions.
        Mr. Yost. Well, I am trying to answer it, ma'am.
        Ms. Fudge. No, I just asked you what percentage, if you
    don't know, just say that and that is fine.
        Mr. Yost. Yes, it is infinitesimal.
        Ms. Fudge. Okay. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mr. Abraham, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the
    witnesses for being here.
        Ms. Shahin, I will start with you first. Ninety-seven
    percent success rate, three percent error rate, which sounds
    good but in reality when we are dealing with the kind of money
    you guys are, that is $2.6 billion, if my math is right, you
    could give $1,000 to everybody over 18 in this United States.
    So it is a big deal. And to the previous $1,500 is important to
    me, and I am sure it is to most people, but it is a big deal.
        My point is, if a surgeon in a hospital has a three percent
    error rate, if a bank under Dodd-Frank has a three percent
    error rate, they are penalized severely. I understand that 97
    sounds good, but in the overall scheme when we are talking
    billions of dollars, three percent matters. It really does.
        Again, if Mr. Yost in Ohio, the USDA, they are not on time,
    is that what you said, Ms. Brown, about not releasing a 2015
    error report?
        Ms. Brown. Correct.
        Mr. Abraham. All right. I guess the question is, if Mr.
    Yost can do this in Ohio, we have great data, why can't other
    states do it and give this data to you guys to give us a 2015
    error rate?
        Ms. Shahin. Sure. Thank you for the question. It might be a
    little bit longer answer than you were hoping for, but----
        Mr. Abraham. Well, just give me the short one.
        Ms. Shahin. Keep it short, okay. What Mr. Yost looked at is
    the back-end, and what the improper payments and the error rate
    are about is the front end. It is the certification process. So
    when we----
        Mr. Abraham. We don't have the computer technology to do
    that now, is that what you are telling me?
        Ms. Shahin. No, it is not that there isn't technology that
    supports that, there absolutely is, but what I am saying is
    that once we realized that we might have a problem with bias
    because of certain rules not being followed, it is really not a
    matter of just looking at a computer, it is a matter of needing
    to go into the states and actually looking at those case files
    and seeing what happened. It is very investigative, very
    research-focused. And we will have all 50 states and the three
    territories done and an error rate announced by December.
        Mr. Abraham. When was it supposed to be due?
        Ms. Shahin. June 30 is when we would normally do it.
        Mr. Abraham. It is about 6 months behind.
        Ms. Shahin. It is.
        Mr. Abraham. Right. And I don't mean to cut you off.
        Ms. Shahin. And I appreciate----
        Mr. Abraham. Okay, let me go to another question.
        Ms. Shahin. Okay.
        Mr. Abraham. Did you say that there is now a higher
    percentage of working people receiving SNAP?
        Ms. Shahin. Yes, sir. Absolutely. About 42 percent of our
    participants live in households with earnings. They are working
    but they are not working enough.
        Mr. Abraham. Right, and again, that just goes back to my
    statement----
        Ms. Shahin. Okay.
        Mr. Abraham. Mr. Scott said, unfortunately, we have 1.7
    million veterans that are now receiving SNAP.
        Ms. Shahin. Absolutely.
        Mr. Abraham. It is a structural problem, but not with the
    USDA, it is a structural problem with our economy, just not
    providing jobs for these poor folks that are trying to make
    ends meet. We will do that.
        Ms. Shahin. Well, we are working on that too, Mr. Abraham,
    and we would love to come and talk to you about it.
        Mr. Abraham. Well, we would love to get people the jobs
    they want, and the jobs that provide a living wage instead of a
    minimum wage.
        Ms. Shahin. Exactly. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Abraham. Mr. Chairman, that is all the questions. I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. McGovern, 5 minutes.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
    for being here.
        I agree with Mr. Abraham in the sense that we need to do
    everything we can to get our economy moving so we can get
    people the jobs that pay a livable wage. But what we shouldn't
    do in this Committee is make it more difficult for them, and
    especially our veterans, during a time when the economy is
    still in recovery. We have a lot of people up here talking
    about removing the waiver for our able-bodied adults without
    dependents. That would take away that waiver from Governors, to
    be able to help some of these people who can't find a job or
    who can't get in a job training program, and a lot of veterans
    will lose their food benefit as a result of it. And if anybody
    can give me a reason or rationale how making somebody hungry
    will help them get a job more quickly, I am all ears.
        Mr. Yost, I have been trying to figure out what this
    hearing is all about, but then you mentioned a phrase that sent
    alarm bells off in my mind, basically saying that we should
    block grant the SNAP Program. And I worry about that because
    this is a good program. There are 48 million people in this
    country who struggle with food insecurity and hunger, and I
    want to make sure that those people get the benefits that they
    are entitled to. And we have a system right now where FNS and
    OIG and GAO and Congress can do oversight to make sure that
    states are, in fact, taking this benefit for food and getting
    it to the people in need. You turn it over to states and I
    don't know what the oversight is going to be, or what the
    guarantee is that people will actually spend that money to help
    struggling families, and to help people who are hungry. This
    notion of block granting this program is a really bad idea. We
    have a lot of people that are hungry, quite frankly, who are
    eligible for this benefit and who don't get the benefit.
        And I just have a couple of questions. Ms. Shahin, do you
    have all the tools and resources you need to identify
    suspicious behavior and remove bad actors from the program? I
    mean are there additional things that we can do here to help
    you get at these bad actors?
        Ms. Shahin. Well, does a Federal agency ever say no to
    additional resources?
        The Chairman. I need your microphone on, ma'am.
        Ms. Shahin. Sorry. I don't think I am supposed to talk that
    way. Let me just talk a little bit about the fact that a lot of
    what we have done, a lot of support that we have gotten from
    Congress already really has helped us to improve our automated
    systems, like that ALERT system that I was talking about. You
    have given us resources, we have centralized our retailer
    management system, and so we now are in one place that lets us
    target our resources, and you have supported that through
    funding as well. We appreciate that. You have given us dollars
    for states and things like that. I think that we need to
    continue our efforts.
        We have seen some really good results, we have seen
    improvement, and we need to keep on that path.
        Mr. McGovern. Right. So, Ms. Shahin, Mr. Yost raised the
    issue that households sometimes shop at stores outside of Ohio.
        Ms. Shahin. Yes.
        Mr. McGovern. That is allowed, right? Is that allowed?
        Ms. Shahin. Actually, nationwide, and Ohio is right in with
    the nationwide average, out-of-state transactions are about
    three percent of the SNAP purchases.
        Mr. McGovern. Right, but it is allowed, right? It seems to
    me that it would be important, since people sometimes, as Mr.
    Walz said, sometimes travel out-of-state. I think he mentioned
    Marshall, Minnesota. I just got to do a quick Google search,
    and Marshall, Minnesota, is the home of Tyson's meat packing
    and meat processing. I mean lots of hourly jobs there. I am not
    saying this is the answer to everything, but it is also
    possible that people, in order to comply with all the rules and
    regulations that we have put forward, travel outside of state,
    work at temporary jobs, work at jobs that are only a few weeks
    in length, and use their benefit there. Is that correct?
        Ms. Shahin. That is very correct. There are all sorts of
    reasons why benefits would be used in a different state. Border
    states, it is very common. Working or just shopping at the
    best-price supermarket or the closest supermarket could be in
    the state because you live close by, in that sense. But also,
    it is important to remember that when we had coupons, they
    could be used across states, and with EBT they have to be
    interoperable.
        Mr. McGovern. Right.
        Ms. Shahin. The key is you have the audit trail and if you
    find things that are suspicious you can look at them.
        Mr. McGovern. Right. It is important that people be able to
    have some flexibility with their EBT card. I just point out
    that, going back to what Ms. Fudge said, that is why the
    follow-up is important.
        Ms. Shahin. Yes.
        Mr. McGovern. Yes, there may be examples where there are
    examples of fraud, but there also may be examples where people
    are using these benefits outside of the state because they are
    working outside of the state. And that is an important thing to
    remember.
        Ms. Shahin. Sure.
        Mr. McGovern. I thank you all for being here.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Newhouse, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
    to thank all of you for being here and contributing to this
    discussion, Mr. Yost, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Shahin. I especially
    want to thank you for your enthusiasm that you exude on this
    topic. I can tell that this means a lot to you, and I
    appreciate your hard work on this.
        I would agree with Mr. McGovern, looking for ways that we
    as Congress can help in this whole issue, because the biggest
    travesty would be that people who are actually in need of food
    are literally having food taken out of their mouths because
    someone else is gaming the system. And so that is something
    that we should definitely be concerned with.
        In my home state, I am from the State of Washington, I can
    proudly say that we have a model SNAP Workforce and Training
    Program that really does exceptional work in helping
    beneficiaries find employment. And given how SNAP allows states
    this kind of flexibility to implement certain aspects of their
    programs, are there any states that have a noticeably lower
    error or fraud rate? If so, do we have a sense of how we can
    achieve that in looking to other states for models?
        Ms. Shahin. Sure. Absolutely. Actually, one of the things
    that we do, we have funding that we call state exchange
    funding, and we use those funds for taking states to places
    where really good administration is happening. Error rates are
    low or an employment and training program is really good, any
    kind of thing like that we really want states to share with
    each other, and we have funds that allows for that kind of
    thing. So that is one important part of it.
        The states get together, actually, on a regular basis. They
    have a trade association that brings them together once a year
    where they share with each other. It is called NAPIPM, and
    please don't ask me what that stands for.
        Mr. Newhouse. Say it again.
        Ms. Shahin. NAPIPM. That is the group, and it is all about
    payment accuracy though. They get together and they share a lot
    of best practices. We also have keys to a low error rate and
    provide best practices on what we call our Partner Web, where
    states have access to share and consider those kinds of things.
        A lot of different things can go into a lower error rate.
    We like to share those things that are successful.
        Mr. Newhouse. Yes, thank you very much. I appreciate that.
    Could you also help me understand what happens when a SNAP
    payment error or fraud is discovered, either by the state or by
    FNS? Are funds somehow recouped or are underpayments made, or
    exactly how does corrective action happen?
        Ms. Shahin. Thank you. Yes, that is an important thing.
    Every error, even the ones that are under the threshold, must
    be reconciled. If an overpayment occurred, then the state must
    go to the client and recoup those funds. It doesn't matter if
    it was the state's fault or the state's mistake that caused the
    error, it still has to be recouped. If they get too little,
    they have to also make that adjustment and give a supplemental
    payment to the household to make it right.
        Mr. Newhouse. The state does.
        Ms. Shahin. The state has to do that. It is Federal funds
    still. It is still our Federal dollars that go to the benefits.
    Yes.
        Mr. Newhouse. And one last question, Ms. Brown, states have
    the authority to waive asset tests for beneficiaries in their
    states. Help me understand this, when that data is not
    collected, it can remove a tool to identify instances when
    errors can and do occur. Do we typically see a reduction in
    recorded error rates when asset tests are performed versus when
    they are not?
        Ms. Brown. Well, asset tests can be a source of error.
    Anything that requires a caseworker to go through and check on
    things and manipulate the numbers can be a source of error. But
    when asset tests are removed, then that takes away that extra
    responsibility and the extra checking, and can actually lower
    the error rate.
        Mr. Newhouse. It can lower the error rate of the benefits
    payments?
        Ms. Brown. It can lower the state's error rate if they have
    large numbers of program recipients where the caseworkers are
    not checking their assets. When they check an asset, they go to
    a bank, they ask for the amount of savings that people have,
    and it is a number of extra steps. And so if they don't check
    that at all, which is what happens in many states in BBCE, then
    that is just one whole lump of potential errors that is off the
    table, which is why the error rate in a state can go down.
        Mr. Newhouse. Well, I can see my time has expired, but I
    would like to further understand that and so maybe we can,
    after the hearing talk about that.
        Ms. Brown. Sure. Broad-based categorical eligibility is one
    of the most complicated issues that we are trying to figure
    out.
        Mr. Newhouse. Right. Okay. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Ms. Adams, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
    the witnesses for your testimony.
        SNAP is a very important program for the 12th District in
    North Carolina that I represent. Mecklenburg County, for
    example, has 154,000 individuals participating in the program,
    more than any other county in our state. SNAP benefits are
    already inadequate to help a needy family put food on the table
    through the end of the month. Complex application requirements
    may reduce the number of individuals that receive SNAP
    benefits, but they also increase the rate of administrative
    errors at the state and county levels. Streamlining application
    and recertification requirements will reduce errors within the
    SNAP program, and more importantly, it will help more people in
    need be able to purchase food through the program.
        Ms. Brown, I recently introduced the Closing the Meal Gap
    Act of 2016 to strengthen the SNAP program, and to authorize
    benefits at a level that will actually help people put food on
    the table through the end of the month. And one of the
    provisions in the bill is to permanently authorize a standard
    medical expense deduction for seniors and disabled individuals
    that apply for SNAP benefits. A standard medical deduction, for
    example, would allow seniors to submit only $35 in out-of-
    pocket medical expenses in order to claim this deduction when
    applying for SNAP benefits. It is estimated that if a standard
    medical deduction was permanently authorized for all states,
    that seniors claiming the deduction would see an increase of $7
    to $69 in monthly SNAP benefits.
        How would establishing a standard medical deduction in
    every state reduce errors in processing SNAP benefits for
    seniors?
        Ms. Brown. We took a look at that particular waiver and we
    determined that that is the kind of thing that would both make
    it easier for the participant, and have them not have to
    collect quite so much information when they were applying, and
    also make it easier for the caseworker, because they would have
    less calculations that they would have to do. Those two things
    combined would likely decrease the errors associated with that
    kind of application.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you. As a follow-up, state options are
    something that we have spent a lot of time discussing in this
    Committee. In your work with states, do you feel they would
    largely agree that options like simplified reporting, for
    example, should be mandatory?
        Ms. Brown. Well, simplified reporting is one of the biggest
    factors that states cite as a likely way to reduce error rates.
    I can't speak to whether states would want things to be
    mandatory or not, that probably varies from state to state, but
    it is one of the options that can reduce error rates. When you
    think about the fact that this program has gone from 26 million
    people in 2007, to 48 million in 2013, I am sure that
    caseworkers would say anything that could be done to decrease
    their workload and make it a little bit easier would be
    appreciated.
        Ms. Adams. Yes. Thank you. For our state, and my district
    in particular, where we have high unemployment rates, and, as
    has been mentioned here, people don't make enough money. I mean
    they are working two and three jobs, minimum wage and even
    less, and that also adds to the problem.
        Finally, Ms. Shahin, let me ask you, if you would clarify
    the Federal rules for dealing with SNAP accounts that go
    unspent.
        Ms. Shahin. So----
        The Chairman. Microphone.
        Ms. Shahin. Sorry. I believe it was the 2008 Farm Bill, if
    I remember correctly, set the rules around--it is called
    expungement. If a household's account is not touched for 12
    months, it is totally inactive, then those benefits are
    expunged. Now, there is an option that states have, we don't
    have many states that take it but it is available to them, they
    can, at 6 months, take the account offline. The account
    continues to accrue its benefits, but it is not available
    because it has been taken offline. And so if the household is
    looking to have those funds, they try to use the card and they
    can't, they will call the worker and those funds can be put
    back into active status.
        Ms. Adams. All right, thank you, Ms. Shahin. I really
    wonder why eligible people might not spend the money when they
    need the food.
        But I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Benishek, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yost, I have some questions for you about this data
    that you have presented. And it seems to me that there is
    suspicion for fraud over a lot of the things like the even-
    dollar, who investigates that? How is that done? Is that the
    Feds' problem or the state? This kind of issue that you brought
    up here, they seem all suspicious to me. I mean, the same
    transaction. What happens to this data that you audited, and
    did somebody act on this?
        Mr. Yost. And my colleagues here may wish to add to this
    answer. The traditional division of labor is that the Federal
    Government goes after the retailers, and the state government
    is assigned to go after the recipient level. With all respect,
    and as a former prosecutor, going after recipients is a lot
    like trying to solve drug trafficking by locking up the guy
    that uses heroin, and has one hit and putting him in prison. We
    have seen across the country that just isn't a very effective
    way to approach it.
        That being said, at the state level when something gets
    referred back it always ends up down at the county level. Some
    counties have some resources to deal with that. Most of them
    don't.
        Mr. Benishek. So it is like it is up to the state
    prosecutor. So then like when the----
        Mr. Yost. At the recipient level.
        Mr. Benishek. Who finds this data? You found this data and
    then what do you do with it? You have to refer it to the state
    prosecutor then to investigate it, and then he refers it to the
    county prosecutor?
        Mr. Yost. In Ohio, the county prosecutor is the only state
    prosecutor. But this transaction that is up here, that report
    had never been run before we did it. No one had gone back to
    look at it. I don't know who the recipients are here, and I
    can't tell a county prosecutor who the recipients are. I think
    that there are some synergies that we could explore.
        Mr. Benishek. Well, who would have to tell? Okay, all
    right----
        Ms. Shahin. May I----
        Mr. Benishek.--Ms. Shahin, you are excited here----
        Ms. Shahin. Thank you.
        Mr. Benishek.--go ahead.
        Ms. Shahin. Thank you. I am because, actually, remember I
    talked about that ALERT system that looks at the data? We don't
    talk about what we look at because then the retailer will know
    what we are looking at and they will change it, so we kind of
    try and keep it a little bit of a secret. But all of the things
    that Mr. Yost is talking about are all things that are
    available through a state's EBT vendor or through our system.
    So there is an opportunity for synergy here.
        Mr. Benishek. Then what do you do about it?
        That is what I want to know, what do you do about it?
        Ms. Shahin. Sure. What we do when we find suspect
    retailers, we had 1,900 retailers last year that we
    disqualified for trafficking. Out of business. They will never
    be a SNAP retailer again.
        Mr. Benishek. Yes, was an individual prosecuted in that?
    Because you can always like change from ABC News Mart to----
        Ms. Shahin. No, sir, we--these----
        Mr. Benishek.--CBS New Mart. You know what I mean? I mean
    that seems to be a simple thing to do.
        Ms. Shahin. That is a very good question. A very good
    question. First off, we can do most of ours through an
    administrative process. So that works out fairly quickly. We
    can get them disqualified administratively. They have an appeal
    process, but we can do that. And so we share that data then
    with the state, for them to look at the people who shop there.
    Now, to the point of you are going to move down the way, that
    is one of the things that we have improved, when I was talking
    about some of the improvements we have been making. We really
    need to make sure that the guy that was disqualified can't come
    back some other kind of sneaky way. We have put some processes
    and procedures in place to make sure that that doesn't happen,
    because that is really important, you are right. I move across
    the way and I just buy a different store. No. If you have been
    permanently disqualified----
        Mr. Benishek. But nobody is actually prosecuted for this
    kind of thing, it doesn't sound like.
        Ms. Shahin. Well, no, when OIG actually takes it on as a
    criminal case, that does go to court. That is the thing like
    what you were talking about Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Benishek. Well, how many times a year does that happen?
        Ms. Shahin. I am sorry?
        Mr. Benishek. How many times a year does that happen where
    somebody actually goes to court? Yes.
        Ms. Shahin. Okay, now are we talking about the recipients?
        Mr. Benishek. No, I am talking about these retailers.
        Ms. Shahin. Okay. Okay. For the retailers. I don't have
    that information because that is through OIG, but I can get it
    for you. Could we get back to you on that, on how many that
    do----
        Mr. Benishek. Well, yes, I guess.
        [The information referred to is located on p. 916.]
        Ms. Shahin. Sure.
        Mr. Benishek. It doesn't seem to me that it is that much of
    a penalty if you just get cut off. You just get a new corporate
    name and you start doing business again.
        Ms. Shahin. But you can't do that. We are going to catch
    you. They have to give us all the information about who is in
    any way connected to this business. So even if they try to----
        Mr. Benishek. Well, it is easy to get around that.
        Ms. Shahin. We do a lot of checks, and we require a lot of
    documentation.
        Mr. Benishek. All right, thank you.
        My time is up.
        Ms. Shahin. Can I just speak for 1 second?
        The Chairman. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Shahin. There was the question about states that do a
    really good job on the recipient fraud side----
        The Chairman. Yes, ma'am. Very quickly.
        Ms. Shahin.--and I couldn't answer. I do have an answer for
    that, and there is one, and, Mr. Chairman, it is your state.
    And if you haven't noticed, it is my state too.
        The Chairman. I got you.
        Ms. Shahin. They do a good job on the front-end with data
    broker work, and they do a great job on the other end with an
    in-house data analytics. They are one of our stars in that
    area.
        The Chairman. Well, I appreciate the advertisement.
        Mr. Ashford, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Shahin. We will send Ohio there.
        Mr. Ashford. Do you have any--I am sorry. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. This really is a key hearing. I am sorry I was late,
    I was at another hearing. I spent 16 years in Nebraska
    Legislature, and before that working with the county and state
    on many of these issues, so it is a massively difficult issue
    to put one's arm around.
        I had a number of questions, most of them have been
    discussed. Let me just ask Mr. Yost. In Ohio, going after or
    pursuing fraud on the recipient level is very, very difficult,
    clearly. Hard to identify right away, and what do you do with
    it, tell me just a little bit more, maybe you have already
    answered this, but how does that sort of investigatory work
    interface with what Ms. Shahin has talked about, because I
    think that is what she is talking about? But, do you notify
    USDA, or the Inspector General, of a pattern of recipient
    fraud, or what do you do and how do you relate to that?
        Mr. Yost. Again, our office is not primarily the
    investigative agency here, so I----
        Mr. Ashford. Okay.
        Is it the county or state?
        Mr. Yost. There is an Ohio investigative group that has
    jurisdiction over this that is housed under the Governor's
    Administration.
        Mr. Ashford. Okay. What is the magnitude in Ohio of this
    fraud on the recipient level? When does it rise to the level of
    sort of actionable----
        Mr. Yost. Well, again, there can be an individual case that
    comes into attention either by a flag or by an alert
    caseworker, and that is referred at the county level to what
    would be the DA in most states.
        Mr. Ashford. Okay. And so when the caseworker, and this
    gets a lot of--spent years working on--with this issue with the
    magnitude of the caseloads, and maybe I have a general question
    as to what everyone would suggest we do to try to alleviate
    some of that, because that is a massive problem in Nebraska, as
    it is everywhere, the caseloads are huge. It would take a
    caseworker to really take the initiative generally, correct?
        Mr. Yost. Yes, and you have to prove intent to do a
    criminal conviction----
        Mr. Ashford. It can't be just sort of a mistake kind of
    thing.
        Mr. Yost. Which is why it is so much easier to use data
    mining and attack this at the retailer level where the
    monetization is actually happening.
        Mr. Ashford. But the recipient level though is a pathway
    into discovering fraud on the--or the retailer level as well, I
    assume. I mean that is where some of this comes from, or no?
    Not really, or----
        Mr. Yost. Well, it can be but, frankly, if we had in drug
    trafficking the kind of deep database that we have for the SNAP
    purchases, we would never do the monkey move-up, get the first
    level, get them to snitch on the next level and move up the
    food chain, we would go straight to the top of the food chain
    and use this data. That is the way it makes sense.
        Mr. Ashford. Okay. Ms. Brown, thank you, can you----
        Ms. Brown. Yes, I was just going to mention that when we
    did our work where we looked at 11 states and what they were
    doing about fraud, we did hear that the investigators had very
    heavy caseloads, and we also heard that in instances where they
    found intentional violations, it was very difficult to get
    prosecutors to pick up those cases because they are small. But
    the other option to remember though is that they can be
    referred to a hearing in the office itself, and at least be
    administratively disqualified from receiving further benefits.
        Mr. Ashford. And once it goes into that administrative
    process too, everybody is alerted, those who know about the
    case are alerted to how this happened and so forth and so on,
    that may or may not lead to other investigatory opportunities
    that would involve someone other than the recipient. It would
    involve the retailer, possibly.
        Ms. Brown. Yes, right.
        Mr. Ashford. Yes. Ms. Shahin, do you have anything to add
    to that? It wasn't really a question.
        Ms. Shahin. No, I think that what you are getting at though
    is something that I really appreciate, which is looking at how
    we can work together.
        Mr. Ashford. Sort of, yes.
        Ms. Shahin. It really is two sides of the coin. And I don't
    disagree with Mr. Yost that the states' job on the recipient is
    a tough one, but there are a lot of tools and a lot of things
    that we can work on, a lot of grants that we are doing, the
    data analytic model that we have developed, South Carolina has
    shown great new recent results. Last year they didn't
    disqualify any recipients. In the first 9 months of this year,
    they disqualified 185.
        Mr. Ashford. Right.
        Ms. Shahin. It lets them target those minimal resources by
    using a model that really makes sense for them.
        Mr. Ashford. Thank you. I am over time. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Allen,
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you panel for
    giving us some real inside information on what is going on out
    there. Of course, we hear lots about this in our districts as
    well.
        I was wondering, I have a couple, he is a disabled veteran
    and she is a homemaker, and has to take care of him, and they
    were on the program, and pretty much he has a specific diet he
    has to eat, and she is very nutrition-conscious. And their
    problem is that there was an enormous amount of availability to
    them that they didn't need, so they kind of wanted to give that
    to somebody else. How does that work, because when they talked
    to their, I guess whoever they reported to get this benefit,
    they basically said take it or leave it. In other words, you
    had to take this much and you could not say, ``Okay, my
    neighbor needs more, and we have heard stories of folks who are
    going without,'' do you administer requests like that? And if
    there is no way to do that, how could you implement something
    like that?
        Ms. Shahin. Wow, that is a pretty amazing story. And I
    guess I would just start with that the amount of benefit they
    receive is based on the rules and the regulations. You have
    this many people in your family, you have this much earned
    income, you have this much unearned income, you have these
    kinds of deductions and this is what you are eligible for. The
    state couldn't really say you are eligible for this, but since
    you don't want all of that we will give you less, because we
    would call that an error. They gave an under-amount. The
    challenge here is how do they take their compassion and their
    generosity and make that work for others, since they feel
    blessed themselves. I think that there are a variety of ways to
    do that. I would imagine through perhaps their church, their
    food bank, and other opportunities volunteering----
        Mr. Allen. Well, and that is what they did, they got off
    the program and their church and I guess other organizations
    were able to fill that need. But you have heard about the cards
    and you can buy them for 50 on the dollar, I mean couldn't
    there be some kind of a requirement where whoever that card is
    issued to has some kind of identification to prove that that is
    exactly who they are? Because we know in some of these drug
    busts I have heard of these folks having multiple numbers of
    these EBT cards. What can we do on that as far as restraining
    that problem?
        Ms. Shahin. Okay, I will take the second one first because
    we also hear the stories of drug busts, a whole pile of EBT
    cards. We would certainly hope that that state law enforcement,
    since we do have relationships with a lot of state law
    enforcement, but even if we don't, that somehow they get that
    information to the state SNAP agency so they can do
    investigations on those cards and see what may have happened,
    how did that happen, is this an indication of something that we
    need to investigate, do we need to refer it to our fraud unit
    those kinds of things.
        Mr. Allen. Well, I mean it is obvious that they are trading
    their EBT card for drugs.
        Ms. Shahin. It definitely raises the red flag, doesn't it?
        Mr. Allen. Right.
        Ms. Shahin. It absolutely does.
        Mr. Allen. Yes.
        Mr. Yost, you have any comment as far as your auditing and
    what kind of issues we got there, and how we can fix that ID
    problem?
        Mr. Yost. One thing that would help some, wouldn't cure it,
    put the picture of the recipient on the card.
        Mr. Allen. Yes. Yes, and is that too expensive to do, or is
    there a reason we are not doing that?
        Ms. Shahin. It does cost more to have the photo on the EBT
    card than not.
        Mr. Allen. Picture ID. But the ultimate saving----
        Ms. Shahin. But it is a state option.
        Mr. Allen. Yes. Yes.
        Ms. Shahin. It is a state option.
        Mr. Allen. Is it? Okay.
        Ms. Shahin. If they want to do that, they can do that. That
    is a state option. One of those flexibilities.
        Mr. Allen. Okay. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Costa, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to offer
    some observations, and I hope they are viewed in a constructive
    fashion. This is the 16th hearing that I believe we have held
    on the SNAP program. In California, we have, of course, the
    highest number of recipients, for a combination of reasons, and
    based on the data that has been collected by the Food and
    Nutrition Service, in my district we have more recipients under
    this program than perhaps any Congressional district in
    California. It is a district that has a lot of interesting
    social, economic breakdowns in terms of contrasts of a lot of
    poverty and a lot of wealth. And it seems to me the whole
    challenge here and the whole purpose of the SNAP program is to
    give people in America, the richest country in the world, the
    ability to have a helping hand, and how we have programs that
    really allow them, the overwhelming majority of them who are in
    assistance, whether it is through SNAP or Women, Infants, and
    Children program, sometimes it is a combination of both, to be
    able to become self-sufficient. And the overwhelming majority
    of them want to become self-sufficient. People fall on hard
    times for a lot of reasons, and we have a lot of challenges out
    there. Out of the 2+ million households that are receiving SNAP
    benefits in California, 50,000 of them are in my district.
        And so I know the focus today is on error rates, and the
    sixteenth hearing that we have had, error rates by states and
    trying to focus on fraud, waste, and abuse. And I understand
    that we should never, ever tolerate any fraud, waste, or abuse
    of taxpayer dollars that are spent for good purposes and good
    intentions, but having looked at this both at the state level,
    when I was in the legislature, and now in Congress, one can
    take the position that maybe we shouldn't have the program. And
    I would disagree, but I can understand where some people may
    come to that conclusion. But the fraud, waste, and abuse in
    terms of error rate is among the lowest of a whole host of
    Federal programs that we provide support for. I would like to
    focus our efforts, I mean if there are some good ideas on how
    we can narrow that error factor in 1\1/2\ percent or so, I
    believe, on fraud, waste, and abuse, and if we can get it even
    lower, that is good. But it seems to me the real focus ought to
    be able to give people an opportunity to get off the
    assistance. We have programs in my area like the Fresno Bridge
    Academy that has been very successful at doing that, and we
    want to expand it. The pilot projects in Washington State, and
    other places that I am aware of, we want to try to figure out
    how we can more effectively get people off the assistance.
    Certainly, we spend a lot of money on this.
        And so what can we do to that end? And I don't know if any
    of the witnesses want to opine. I have used most of my time in
    making my observation.
        Ms. Shahin. Do you all mind? Okay. I will take your----
        Mr. Costa. Forty seconds or less.
        Ms. Shahin.--few minutes left, Mr. Costa. Thank you. We
    also have put a great deal of focus. I will admit to you that
    for a number of years we were not paying this much attention to
    the employment and training services that we have available to
    us. But a few years ago, we actually put our money where our
    mouth was. We have put resources to it, we have put resources
    not only in our national office but out in the regions. Now,
    why is that important? Because states really weren't
    necessarily used to how to do employment training as a part of
    the SNAP program. We have really beefed-up the technical
    assistance, we have a SNAP to Skills, it is very job-driven
    because that is one of the things we wanted to pay special
    attention to. What are the jobs, and train for those jobs. It
    is a really important way of looking at work services.
        You are absolutely right, Fresno has one of our E&T pilots,
    and we are very excited about it. It is multigenerational, it
    is an approach that is very interesting to us, and testing that
    and taking a look at it and seeing if that is something that we
    can then take on as a best practice to other states. We are
    excited about that.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's----
        Ms. Shahin. Mr. Newhouse mentioned Washington State----
        The Chairman. Ma'am, the gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you, and we should expand it. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. In order to get through this me need to keep
    moving.
        Mr. Thompson, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks to the members of
    the panel for being here, for being a part of the process,
    which has been a very thorough, comprehensive process of
    looking at an important program, making sure that we are doing
    it right, meeting people's needs, that we are minimizing errors
    and obviously fraud. And today we are focused on errors.
        Now, one of the numbers when I first came in, and I
    apologize if this was already covered, but I had heard that one
    of the statistics was, and correct me if I am wrong, I thought
    I heard today we have 48 million citizens that are utilizing
    the SNAP program.
        Ms. Brown. Forty-eight million in 2013. Today it is 46
    million. It has gone down slightly.
        Mr. Thompson. Okay, gone down. All right. My first
    question, and thanks for clarifying that number for me.
        Ms. Shahin, when a state agency or the USDA is reviewing
    certain case files, are there certain procedures that a case
    file reviewer must follow? For example, is a single phone call
    sufficient, or are there Federal requirements or guidelines
    USDA enforces, or is it left up to the state agency in terms of
    how they gather the required information?
        Ms. Shahin. If I am not mistaken, what you are talking
    about is in the QC review. Is that what you mean, is in the QC
    review they have to actually, in that sample month, basically
    determine whether or not the benefit that they received that
    month was correct. They basically have to work the case all
    over again. They have to do the verifications, they have to do
    the interview, all of those have to happen, and all of that has
    to be documented in the file very clearly. That is what the
    state review is all about is doing all of that work. And it is
    very similar to the original certification. It is a rigorous--
    --
        Mr. Thompson. Just to clarify too though, some of the
    questions were about where the accounts have been inactive and,
    therefore, frozen until maybe a recipient chooses to try to use
    a card, cannot, and that that kind of triggers, are those
    benefits just fully restored, or does it go through that kind
    of a thorough process to make sure that there is still
    eligibility, they haven't been successful finding better
    employment or employment, or those types of things?
        Ms. Shahin. Absolutely. Yes, and that is one of the things
    that states do when they take it offline. Then they are going
    to discuss, you had not touched it for this period of time,
    have there been changes in your circumstances, we need to take
    a look at this. And they can even do some of their own data
    matches that they have available to them to see what might be
    going on for that household or family.
        Mr. Thompson. Very good. My next question is for any of the
    witnesses. Since the SNAP program obviously is a taxpayer-
    provided assistance for those folks who are in need. What
    percentage of SNAP payments made in error are recovered, and
    how is this tracked and does it include payments that are
    errors and payments as a result of fraud, and exactly how is
    that payment recovered?
        Ms. Shahin. I think that is mine. Okay, so when they go
    through the QC review process, any cases that is found to be an
    error, whether it is an overpayment or an underpayment, and no
    matter of the threshold, all of them have to then be corrected
    and reconciled and made correct. That means that if they
    received an overpayment, then the state must recoup that money
    from the client, no matter whose fault it was. Now, remember, I
    don't know if you were in here, but 62 percent of the errors
    happen through the state administrative process, 38 percent
    happen by client mistakes. And so as a part of that, and you
    mentioned fraud, so when they look at that and they see the
    over-issuance, they are going to have to recoup, and they are
    also going to have to look at that case and think, ``Was this a
    mistake on the part of the client.'' Let's say it wasn't a
    state error, is this a mistake on the part of the client, did
    they misunderstand, or were they trying to pull something over
    on me. Was there an intent to do that. If that is the case,
    then they have to refer that to their fraud unit as well. So
    any case that is found in error.
        On the other side, if it is an underpayment they have to
    give them a supplemental payment for that.
        Mr. Thompson. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. All right, just to clarify before the
    gentleman's time is yielded, Ms. Shahin, I know that you are
    saying that they have to do that on the overpayments. What is
    the percentage of overpayments that are actually collected?
        Ms. Shahin. Well, it should be----
        The Chairman. I know, but----
        Ms. Shahin. It should be----
        The Chairman. We don't track that?
        Ms. Shahin. Well, we do, and we are going to actually be
    getting better information. I mentioned that we are revising
    our reporting form from the states, so we will be getting more
    information on this. But they have to do the recoupment. They
    actually get to keep 35 percent, that is a part of the statute.
    They get to keep some of that. If they can't recover it, then
    they have to refer it to Treasury Offset, and then those funds
    are recovered in that manner.
        The Chairman. I don't have any idea what a Treasury Offset
    is. What is that?
        Ms. Shahin. Treasury Offset----
        The Chairman. Next month's benefit is offset?
        Ms. Shahin.--it is like taking their tax return. The
    government will----
        The Chairman. These folks aren't filing tax returns.
        Ms. Shahin. I am sorry?
        The Chairman. These folks--okay.
        Ms. Shahin. Well, some of them do have tax returns. Some of
    them.
        The Chairman. All right, so this would come out of their
    earned income credit?
        Ms. Shahin. It could come out, yes. And actually, the
    Treasury Offset Program, I don't have the information right off
    the top of my head, but that might be something you would be
    interested to know the billions of dollars we have recovered
    that way.
        The Chairman. Now, does the state get 35 percent on
    underpayments, do the states get 35 percent of the underpayment
    as well?
        Ms. Shahin. Of the underpayments? No, sir.
        The Chairman. Okay. Ms. Lujan Grisham, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too am
    really interested in making sure that a benefit in a program
    that I actually think highly of, particularly in terms of its
    both intended beneficiary group, given that I am still
    representing one of the most hungry states and hungry
    populations in the country per capita, but also think that in
    spite of what are considerable and significant shortcomings in
    the oversight and quality work by USDA, that most states do a
    fairly effective job at keeping the administrative costs low.
        I believe that you are aware of the many concerns that we
    have in New Mexico's program, which are longstanding, at least
    8 years. And, in fact, USDA, by all accounts, has done very
    little with this knowledge. It is incredibly disturbing to me
    to continue, as recent as last night, on national news to hear
    the allegations from beneficiaries who meet the qualifications
    for emergency benefits, which means that they are at risk of
    being homeless, there is no food in the house, they are raising
    kids, and that state employees in New Mexico are adding
    benefits to their applications so that they don't get dinged.
    This is apparently one place where USDA will ding you, it is
    like the veterans wait list, that if you don't move those
    applications timely, because they are emergencies, then you are
    in trouble. What our state is doing is they falsify those
    records. And, in fact, the person who the court believes to
    date was most involved in falsifying those records, in a report
    to USDA, it was confirmed that it was okay that that person
    manage the improvements to the New Mexico program. The courts
    and others have disagreed with you, and that person is no
    longer, who pleaded the Fifth, I might get this a little wrong,
    20 times, 100 times, multiple times in court, is no longer
    going to be able to try to rectify this program.
        Now, in a government oversight hearing, we finally,
    bipartisanly, got the Under Secretary Concannon to agree that
    this should be referred to the OIG for investigation, because
    prior to that, the idea was that USDA would provide technical
    assistance to the state to investigate itself, which is
    untenable and really goes to the larger question. We are not
    creating environments where we are protecting the
    beneficiaries, protecting the benefits, holding states
    accountable, or holding bad actors accountable. And I think
    that the genesis of this hearing, while we might disagree about
    the policy of the program, we definitely want it to be
    administered correctly.
        Since all of these hearings, and, in fact, I am going to
    quote Concannon who said, ``New Mexico has the most fouled-up
    SNAP program in the country.'' And yet we were just doing
    technical assistance.
        I am interested to know what progress you have made in New
    Mexico, and given what you now know about New Mexico, what are
    you going to do to hold states accountable? All right, so I get
    that we want the tools for the beneficiaries who are bad
    actors, and the grocery stores, and the drug dealers, and all
    those bad actors, I have no tolerance for it, but I expect the
    state administrators to do their job and to be held accountable
    in the same way, which is why I am not a big fan of block
    grants because then you can't even get the data when the states
    aren't doing their job. How are we doing?
        Ms. Shahin. Okay.
        The Chairman. Microphone.
        Ms. Shahin. Okay. Lots of information there. Lots of
    questions there. I am going to try and take what you have
    asked, but if I don't get it all please----
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. I just want an update.
        Ms. Shahin. Yes.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Yes.
        Ms. Shahin. Okay. First off, thank you for mentioning the
    U.S. OIG. The Under Secretary did send the request to them on
    June 15. We have heard from them. They have initiated an
    independent review and investigation. Part of that we did get
    on the phone with them to say we have a lot of other things
    that we need to work on in New Mexico. We want to make sure we
    don't impede your investigation in this. Is there anything you
    want us to do.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. And you want to protect those
    beneficiaries.
        How are you going to----
        Ms. Shahin. That is right. That is absolutely right. And
    you are absolutely correct that actually integrity is two sides
    of the same coin, and that coin has access on one side.
    Integrity is also the access to the program. Receiving the
    right benefit, when you are eligible, timely. Whether you are
    talking about an expedited or a regular program, you do that.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Ms. Shahin, the Chairman is
    overly patient with me. I am always over time. But it does
    speak to your question, Mr. Chairman, which is we need data
    about whether or not accountability is really occurring at all
    levels.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mr. LaMalfa, 5 minutes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Brown, coming back to some of the previous testimony,
    in the 2014 GAO report there was discussed a great deal of
    fraud within the program, as well as many factors limiting the
    effectiveness of detection tools that would be coming from the
    USDA. But during the same year, USDA actually touted their
    record of their payment accuracy rate and work reducing the
    fraud. As you mentioned earlier, in the identified report there
    is concern that USDA and the Food and Nutrition Service do not
    have reliable or relevant data, so it is pretty difficult to
    actually determine how they got to these numbers and figures
    they are labeling as a successful venture, when multiple state
    investigations are getting different numbers at the same time.
    FNS was pushing the use of monitoring software, which I
    understand to be described as the really simple syndication, or
    the RSS, technology, which is known to be outdated, and the
    report found only one state of eleven that it surveyed found it
    to be effective.
        My question is, in your opinion, which is also based on
    GAO's overall findings on fraud, is USDA doing enough to not
    only implement more effective methods to prevent fraud before
    it happens, but also to improve the data they have so we
    actually have a more accurate picture of the figures of fraud.
    As they mentioned in this statement, it is pretty sketchy. How
    would you really bottom line address that to how are we going
    to have a better, more accurate picture overall of fraud with
    this kind of issue going on at the state level, and with
    previous technology?
        Ms. Brown. Well, one of the things that you mentioned was
    trying to get a handle on the extent of recipient fraud. And
    what we asked USDA to do was take a look at their reporting
    form on that because we don't have a measure, like there is X
    percent of recipient fraud in the country or in any state. But
    in lieu of that, USDA has a reporting form that Ms. Shahin has
    mentioned that they are modifying, and that form has how many
    investigations are done, how many administrative
    disqualifications, how many prosecutions, that kind of thing,
    that at least gives some kind of measure about state effort.
    And what we found was that the information that was coming in
    on that form to date was not good because different states were
    interpreting what they were supposed to be reporting, what
    constituted an investigation, for example, differently. We
    asked them to fix that form, and they have, in fact, they have
    developed a new form, I think it is a----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Let me break in, is this part of the RSS, or
    the really simple syndication system?
        Ms. Brown. That is a second issue that I want to make sure
    I address too.
        Mr. LaMalfa. But, those are two different ones.
        Ms. Brown. Yes. And so the form thing, they are working on
    that and they are waiting for OMB to approve it, and they are
    doing training on it.
        The RSS feed is about the fact that there is some concern
    that traffickers are using e-commerce and social media sites to
    try to traffic their benefits. They might be trying to trade
    for cash or even trade for a place to stay, or other types of
    nonfood goods and that is not----
        Mr. LaMalfa. And when you find this type of transaction
    going on, on social media, do you have the means to come down
    upon that immediately and firmly?
        Ms. Brown. Well, we did some studies and did find examples
    of that. Not a huge amount, but we did find examples. And our
    recommendation to USDA was that the types of guidance they were
    giving the states on how to get a handle on that and get out in
    front of it, the states didn't find it very helpful. And so it
    was just a lot of data through the RSS feeds that you are
    talking about. And we found that just by looking at an e-
    commerce site and doing a manual search, we found better
    information than they did through all this data that was coming
    to them that USDA was recommending. We suggested that they
    improve that process and----
        Mr. LaMalfa. I am about out of time, so just the bottom
    line, do you feel that the USDA is doing enough right now to
    implement more effective methods?
        Ms. Brown. I think they are taking steps in all of the
    areas that we recommended. I don't think they are quite there
    on any of them yet.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, the steps as they play out, will that be
    enough, or is it going to be still behind the curve ball?
        Ms. Brown. Well, what we looked at was just some elements
    of fraud at the state level, and there are many other
    opportunities that we have talked about today that are
    instances where USDA and the states can work together more
    closely to share their data and find ways to identify fraud.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Just a couple of nits and nats. Ms. Shahin, the
    clearinghouse the tests that you did, how many states were
    involved in the clearinghouse?
        Ms. Shahin. It was five states.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Ms. Shahin. Do you want to know which they were?
        The Chairman. No, that is okay.
        Ms. Shahin. Okay.
        The Chairman. It was five.
        Ms. Shahin. Okay.
        The Chairman. And then on people who are disqualified,
    retailers disqualified under your administrative procedures, is
    that public information, is that available for the public to
    know? Should we publicize that better and shame these people?
        Ms. Shahin. Yes, sir. Actually, it goes onto, I can't
    remember the name of it. I think it is called SAMS. It gets
    posted.
        The Chairman. All right, it would be the retail
    establishment, XYZ Food Mart. Are the individuals who----
        Ms. Shahin. It would be the owner. The owner's name.
        The Chairman. The owner.
        Ms. Shahin. Yes----
        The Chairman. The individual themselves who----
        Ms. Shahin. You bet, because remember that he might sell
    that store now, okay, and if he sells it, he is going to have
    to pay a penalty for having sold it because the
    disqualification wasn't enough, so we are going to charge him a
    penalty.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Ms. Shahin. But that new owner may keep the same name of
    the store.
        The Chairman. Right. I got you. All right.
        Ms. Shahin. So we want the owner's name.
        The Chairman. All right. Mr. Denham, did you want to ask a
    question?
        Mr. Denham. No.
        The Chairman. Okay. Well, thank you all for being here. Ms.
    Shahin, your first bite at the apple, the USDA may never let
    you come back. Your way is too candid. But thank you. Good job.
        Ms. Brown, thank you.
        Mr. Yost, you had one slide up there that showed the same
    transactions for 6 months in a row, right after the EBT cards
    refreshed. I used to be an auditor back in my misspent youth,
    and that is suspicious. And it wasn't your task to go find that
    individual or look at that retailer to see if there were other
    similar transactions going on, that couldn't be the only time
    that retailer perpetrated that deal with that one individual.
    There had to be other individuals doing it as well. And so
    there is plenty of meat in your information, your data mining,
    for me to say that this should have been fodder for additional
    investigations. I understand the challenge of small-dollar
    defalcations and small-dollar errors, but nevertheless, each of
    those chip away at the public integrity, the public support.
    Mr. Yost, you said it really well in terms of why we need to
    get this right over and over. I am a little concerned with the
    quest to get the error rate down by making it easier to not
    make errors. Errors are there, tracked errors to find out if
    people are getting benefits they shouldn't get, or didn't get
    benefits they should. If we just simply make it easier to not
    make errors then I don't know that that is necessarily the
    proper quest that we should be on. But all this fits into the
    overall pattern. My colleagues from time to time on the other
    side of the aisle gripe about the number of hearings we have
    had. We spend $80 billion a year on this program. It is worthy
    of several hearings to understand what is going on, and so I am
    not embarrassed by it. And, quite frankly, I have no way to
    compel them to come to these hearings. They show up on their
    own. If they don't like it, they can stay home.
        But nevertheless, I appreciate our witnesses being here
    this morning and giving us some good information.
        We might have some follow-up things to talk about as well,
    particularly the offsets or the way to get back the
    overpayments on the error rates, even the ones that we do
    track. The fact that the error rate is understated, many point
    to that as a point of honor, and knowing that the data is just
    not inclusive of all the errors because of the floor that is
    under this program, and none of the other means-tested
    programs. That is good information to have this morning as we
    continue to get this right. Forty-five million Americans are
    dependent on this. The rest of the Americans who are paying for
    this need to know that it is being administered correctly and
    properly. And I appreciate all of your efforts across the
    spectrum of how you make that happen.
        Under the rules of the Committee, today's hearing will
    remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material
    and supplemental written responses from any of the witnesses to
    any of the questions by a Member.
        This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
    Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
         Supplementary Material Submitted by Jessica Shahin, Associate
    Administrator for SNAP, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of
                                  Agriculture
    Insert 1
              The Chairman. Okay.
              Recently, there was in the news a very large bust, $13 to $16
            million, and it appeared to be conducted from storefronts that
            didn't even a business there. Is there not a site visit
            associated with the retailer approval process?
              Ms. Shahin. Yes, sir, there is a site visit that is involved,
            and we have made a lot of improvements actually in the area of
            denying stores up-front because we are doing better work in
            that area. Are you talking about the one down near Miami?
              The Chairman. It was in Florida, yes, ma'am.
              Ms. Shahin. Opa Locka. Yes.
              The Chairman. Yes, ma'am.
              Ms. Shahin. So that is a really good example of the work of
            state law enforcement, our USDA OIG. Our agency actually were
            the first to get the hotline call. We did some investigation.
            It looked like trafficking was happening. It was referred over
            to OIG and they said, ``Yes, this is a criminal case we want to
            go after.'' So it takes a little bit more time to get those
            done because they are taking criminal action.
              The Chairman. Right, but my understanding of that one is the
            storefronts were just that; there were no businesses associated
            with it. There wasn't actually a retail shop there for folks to
            actually buy food.
              Ms. Shahin. Yes. That is not the way I understand it but that
            is really good to know, so I can go back and check on that.

        Yes. Every firm that was authorized at the Opa Locka flea market
    was visited prior to authorization. In addition, since July 2015, FNS
    has consistently required proof of the owner's inventory purchases
    prior to authorization.
    Insert 2
              Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
              Ms. Shahin, I mentioned in my opening remarks that I am not
            the big fan of having these different standards. And I realize
            that in most cases it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
            But, in North Dakota, people qualify for benefits that, if they
            were in my district in Minnesota, they don't. It is just not
            right, in my opinion. One question I have is with the LIHEAP
            situation. Minnesota is not one of those states where we had a
            lot of people on this dollar LIHEAP payout so that they were
            qualifying, and we raised it to $20, didn't we? Is that what we
            did? And CBO was saying at the time that the states wouldn't
            spend the $20 to qualify people. So what ended up happening?
            Did it knock a lot of people off the rolls that were on there
            before, or not, or what happened?
              Ms. Shahin. Yes, on LIHEAP, and I am not anywhere near as
            good keeping numbers in my head, so let me just say I will go
            back and check and make sure I did this right, but I believe
            there were about 17 states that were doing the nominal, and I
            believe around 12 to 13 went ahead and brought their nominal
            LIHEAP up to the $20 to meet the law as it was provided for.
            The remainder did not. Once again, as you are suggesting, these
            are options and choices that we do have for states in terms of
            their flexibilities and ways they can approach the program. We
            have the national standards, but there are places and
            flexibilities that provide for that kind of thing.

        The Agricultural Act of 2014 modified the link between a
    household's receipt of Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
    (LIHEAP) benefits and its eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP) heating or cooling standard utility allowance
    (SUA) by requiring that the LIHEAP payment exceed $20 annually and be
    received in the current or immediately preceding 12 months. These
    changes primarily impacted the 17 states that had implemented nominal
    LIHEAP payments. FNS provided detailed implementation guidance, policy
    clarifications, and technical assistance to these 17 states. FNS
    encouraged these states to move forward with implementation in a manner
    that follows the intent of the law.
        To date, 13 states have increased their minimum LIHEAP payments to
    greater than $20: California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of
    Columbia, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, Oregon,
    Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington State. Four states,
    Michigan, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and New Hampshire, chose not to
    increase payments and no longer apply the SUA automatically to
    households that receive LIHEAP. In the states that did not increase
    their LIHEAP payments, impacted households continued to receive SNAP
    benefits but likely experienced a reduction in benefit levels.
        FNS will continue to monitor each SNAP state agency's compliance
    with this requirement and will quickly address potential challenges.
    LIHEAP is a state-administered program under the Federal oversight of
    the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). States have the
    authority to determine how to use their LIHEAP funding, in accordance
    with that program's requirements. LIHEAP is not administered or funded
    by the USDA and USDA does not have the authority to regulate state's
    administration of LIHEAP. USDA has consulted with HHS in order to
    ensure mutual understanding of the new requirements that now govern the
    SNAP/LIHEAP link and will continue to coordinate with HHS to address
    any issues that arise.
    Insert 3
              Mr. Benishek. But nobody is actually prosecuted for this kind
            of thing, it doesn't sound like.
              Ms. Shahin. Well, no, when OIG actually takes it on as a
            criminal case, that does go to court. That is the thing like
            what you were talking about Mr. Chairman.
              Mr. Benishek. Well, how many times a year does that happen?
              Ms. Shahin. I am sorry?
              Mr. Benishek. How many times a year does that happen where
            somebody actually goes to court? Yes.
              Ms. Shahin. Okay, now are we talking about the recipients?
              Mr. Benishek. No, I am talking about these retailers.
              Ms. Shahin. Okay. Okay. For the retailers. I don't have that
            information because that is through OIG, but I can get it for
            you. Could we get back to you on that, on how many that do----
              Mr. Benishek. Well, yes, I guess.

        FNS has consulted with the Department of Agriculture's Office of
    Inspector General (USDA OIG) to provide this response. The USDA OIG
    takes as many actions as are necessary in any given year. For example,
    in FY 2015, for cases involving SNAP fraud directly attributed to
    retailers, USDA OIG had 352 indictments, and 504 convictions with
    monetary results totaling $65.2 million. Note: Indictments and
    convictions often do not align one-for-one in any given year. The
    average time between indictment and conviction is 14-18 months (or
    potentially longer in some cases) so they may not occur within the same
    year.
                                     ______

     Supplementary Material Submitted by Hon. Dave Yost, Auditor, State of
                                      Ohio
              Ms. Fudge. This is a very broad statement. Have you found
            fraud in Medicare or Medicaid, and at what level?
              Mr. Yost. Sure. We find misspending in a variety of programs.
            We issued a report last year about some in the Department of
            Education.
              Ms. Fudge. Are you concerned about those as much as you are
            concerned about this?
              Mr. Yost. I am concerned about all of the misspending I find,
            ma'am.
              Ms. Fudge. What about crop insurance, what has your audit
            found about that?
              Mr. Yost. I don't know that we have ever looked at crop
            insurance, and I don't know what the risks associated on it
            are.

    July 7, 2016

      Hon. Marcia L. Fudge,
      Member of Congress,
      Cleveland, OH.

        Dear Representative Fudge:

        I was taken aback yesterday during the House Committee on
    Agriculture's SNAP hearing when you asked me if the Ohio Auditor of
    State's office audits the Federal Crop Insurance Program. It turns out
    my surprise was for good reason: Crop Insurance is not a Federal
    program administered by the state and is not included on the states'
    Federal schedule to be audited.
        The Federal Crop Insurance Program you referenced is administered
    by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency (RMA).
    RMA selects and pays private insurance companies to sell and service
    the policies. Crop insurance claims are paid by the private insurance
    company directly to the farmer. The State of Ohio is not involved in
    the process.
        I hope this information is helpful as you continue to review SNAP
    and assess all the programs that fall under the direction of the
    Department of Agriculture.
                Sincerely,

    Hon. Dave Yost,
    Auditor, State of Ohio.

    CC:

    Hon. K. Michael Conaway, Chairman;
    Members of the House Committee on Agriculture.
                                     ______

     Submitted Letter by Tracy Wareing Evans, Executive Director, American
                       Public Human Services Association
    July 18, 2016

      Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
      Chairman,
      House Committee on Agriculture,
      Washington, D.C.;

      Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
      Ranking Member,
      House Committee on Agriculture,
      Washington, D.C.

        Dear Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson:

        I write today on behalf of the American Public Human Services
    Association (APHSA), which represents the state and local public human
    services administrators responsible for implementing and managing the
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). We have a long-
    standing interest in assuring that SNAP provides long-term, positive
    impacts for the population it serves directly and the nation at large.
    APHSA is committed to a human services system that supports stronger
    and healthier individuals, families, and communities through positive
    and sustainable outcomes, and SNAP plays a critically important part.
        We appreciate this opportunity to submit a written statement for
    the record following your hearing of July 6, 2016, ``Past, Present, and
    Future of SNAP: Evaluating Error Rates and Anti-Fraud Measures to
    Enhance Program Integrity.'' States take seriously the issue of SNAP
    program integrity and want to see this program administered properly in
    every respect, including its quality control (QC) procedures. Over the
    years, we in partnership with the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) have
    steadily improved SNAP's performance despite tight budgets and the
    program's size and complexity. We will continue to work with FNS to
    maintain and further strengthen this record.
        The July 6 hearing covered both trafficking (the prohibited use of
    converting benefits to cash through a cooperating retailer) and errors
    made during the eligibility determination process. States have primary
    responsibility for eligibility errors, and our comments below focus on
    this issue and its associated QC procedures. (While FNS has primary
    responsibility for retailers and trafficking, states also devote
    resources to taking appropriate action against recipients who traffic
    their benefits.)
        As you are aware, the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG)
    submitted a report in September 2015 criticizing both FNS and the
    states for shortcomings in SNAP QC. Following this report and its own
    recent intensive reviews, FNS has begun informing states that some are
    seriously out of compliance with a variety of SNAP QC requirements. FNS
    has asked states to develop corrective action plans if they concur. The
    FNS reviews have covered more than 30 states so far and we understand
    are scheduled to be completed in all states by late December 2016.
        SNAP QC procedures are extensive and detailed. FNS and the states
    have partnered for many years to understand and properly implement
    training protocols and administrative techniques to assure QC is done
    well. We and FNS have engaged in countless conference workshops,
    trainings, conference calls, monitoring visits, and other joint
    activities to implement these procedures in the best way possible. The
    last step in this process is that FNS reviews a subsample of state QC
    cases and confirms their validity before error results are finalized
    and published.
        Given the closely intertwined responsibilities that FNS and states
    have in administering SNAP and its QC procedures, and the continuous
    communication taking place between us, it is not our purpose to assign
    blame for any problems that exist but instead map out a productive and
    mutual path forward to mitigate systemic factors that have helped
    produce the current controversy. As outlined below, we believe that a
    combination of simpler program rules, rapid modernization of
    eligibility and verification methods, and a far more intentional system
    of training and communication are critically important first steps.
    More significantly, we call for a far broader and more outcome-focused
    way of assessing SNAP's performance and impacts, perhaps augmented by
    an independent analysis of what metrics are most important to consider
    and how they should be administered.
        Program simplification--As APHSA and its members have urged for
    many years, simpler SNAP rules would reduce the opportunities for
    errors in the first place, as well as reducing administrative burdens
    for states and confusion for customers. SNAP's profusion of eligibility
    factors attempts to reflect precisely every type of and change in these
    factors--perhaps a desirable goal in theory, but they are now so
    numerous and so complex that we doubt there is any longer a net benefit
    to this approach. Many SNAP households have frequent changes that
    strain our resources to constantly track and verify them. SNAP formerly
    had a very sensible tolerance level of $50 in budget changes before an
    error was cited, but the 2014 Farm Bill lowered that figure. Minor
    variations in circumstances should not be included in eligibility
    factors and their associated QC reviews.
        SNAP should also become more aligned with other major assistance
    programs, including Medicaid, the Temporary Assistance for Needy
    Families program, housing, child care, and similar programs--such as by
    counting income the same way, among many other possibilities. Again,
    doing so would enhance program integrity, reduce confusion, and
    streamline administration.
        Modernization to take full advantage of electronic information--
    SNAP must be aggressively modernized in the way it collects, uses, and
    verifies eligibility information. The program is still far too paper-
    based, is too hampered by outmoded technology, makes insufficient use
    of existing electronic data, and focuses too little on the creation of
    new databases. For example, SNAP and other human services programs need
    access to a central data source such as the Federal Data Services Hub,
    and the data within it must be considered already verified for SNAP
    use. Further, FNS and other Federal agencies must revisit how
    proprietary data sources used in eligibility determination are shared
    and paid for; while some of this data is available free for Medicaid,
    states must pay for the same data again to access it for SNAP, an
    obvious unnecessary use of scarce funds.
        Pilots such as the National Accuracy Clearinghouse, which is
    testing a multi-state recipient database, are promising and should be
    quickly implemented for a variety of other creative ideas in generating
    and sharing information. Potentially helpful innovations like these
    demand a much higher priority and much faster timetables than we have
    seen to date. Progress on these fronts could alone reduce or eliminate
    many of the integrity concerns we currently face.
        Training and communication--Despite how closely we work with FNS,
    the recent reviews have highlighted that far too much confusion still
    exists around what QC procedures are permissible and how a long list of
    technical issues should be interpreted and resolved. Our state members
    report that there are regional variations in guidance and training
    provided by FNS; a range of interpretations about the meaning of FNS
    manual material; different rulings by FNS on the same issue over time;
    and, in the current round of reviews, the flagging as violations of
    practices that were already known to FNS and were even part of approved
    corrective action plans. They also note a number of mistakes and
    misinterpretations in what the OIG findings assert. We believe that
    alternative training approaches would yield major progress toward
    resolving these problems, for example online, national training events;
    simultaneous training of both policy and quality control staff, and of
    both Federal and state staff, in the same events; and outside
    facilitation and analysis that can help sustain the impacts of training
    for all staff, regardless of the roles they play.
        We continue to work closely with FNS to resolve these concerns, and
    understand that FNS is bringing regional leaders together for intensive
    new training and is updating the QC Handbook. We stress that the lack
    of consistency must be aggressively addressed in fairness to all
    states.
        A broader approach to assessing SNAP--Beyond the more immediate
    changes above, APHSA urges that we work promptly toward a more
    comprehensive assessment of SNAP's performance and impacts that
    demonstrate how SNAP has made the lives of individuals and families
    better. SNAP must of course remain grounded in accuracy and timeliness,
    but the program accomplishes so much more: supporting gainful
    employment, stabilizing family budgets, and improving nutrition and
    other factors in well-being. The intense and nearly exclusive focus on
    current QC metrics leaves little staff time and capacity--either state
    or Federal--to pay proper attention to these significant and broad
    impacts. SNAP plays important roles in preventing downstream, ``heavy
    touch'' problems and in strengthening families in multiple other ways,
    and these outcomes must be given their proper weight.
        An independent study of SNAP program integrity--APHSA also believes
    there could be great value in having an independent, outside party
    study SNAP's QC and integrity procedures, such as was done to resolve
    QC concerns in the 1980s by the National Academy of Sciences. This
    analysis should examine which measures are most relevant and useful for
    evaluating SNAP's success and how they should be administered. It
    should focus particularly on what SNAP could learn from how other
    government programs are measured, how SNAP's broader impacts can be
    practically evaluated, and how improvements in administration can best
    be incentivized.
        APHSA and its members are preparing detailed policy proposals to
    cover the above issues and others in advance of SNAP's upcoming
    reauthorization, and we will share those with you when they have been
    completed. In the meantime we will of course cooperate with FNS to end
    violations warranted by evidence found in the current reviews. However,
    this experience has reminded us again of the very serious need for a
    fresh look at SNAP QC and how the entire program can be made better. We
    offer the expertise and experience of our members as we undertake this
    important effort, and look forward to working with you in any way we
    can.
        Thank you again for this opportunity. If you have any questions
    please contact Larry Goolsby, Director of Strategic Initiatives, at
    [Redacted] or [Redacted].
                Sincerely,

    Tracy Wareing Evans,
    Executive Director.

                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

                 (PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: IMPROVING

          INNOVATION AND SUCCESS IN EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS)

                                  ----------

                          TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                                     Subcommittee on Nutrition,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
    Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jackie
    Walorski [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Walorski, Thompson, Gibbs,
    Crawford, Benishek, Yoho, Moolenaar, Conaway (ex officio),
    McGovern, Lujan Grisham, Aguilar, Ashford, DelBene, and Costa.
        Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Jadi Chapman, Mary Nowak,
    Mollie Wilken, Stephanie Addison, Lisa Shelton, Liz
    Friedlander, Faisal Siddiqui, John Konya, Nicole Scott, and
    Carly Reedholm.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE WALORSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                         CONGRESS FROM INDIANA

        The Chairwoman. Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing
    entitled, Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: Improving
    Innovation and Success in Employment and Training Programs.
        I would like to say good morning and welcome to today's
    Nutrition Subcommittee hearing. Thank you to everyone for being
    here, and thank you, in particular, to our witnesses for your
    participation and valuable insights.
        We are continuing the series of hearings looking at the
    past, present, and future of the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program, or SNAP, by examining employment and
    training, or E&T, programs. While we know that a job is the
    surest way to get out of poverty, it can be difficult for
    individuals to find a job that matches their skills, or to gain
    the skills needed to fill the jobs available in an area. This
    is why Congress created employment and training components in
    various welfare programs to help low-income individuals obtain
    the skills and training they need to find and keep a job.
        SNAP E&T and other workforce training programs exist to
    ensure that the safety net is a temporary stop for able-bodied
    adults. They build up valuable skills. They lend a helping hand
    to those bouncing back from adversity. Each state SNAP E&T plan
    is approved and overseen by USDA. States are required to
    operate a SNAP E&T program and have considerable flexibility to
    tailor their state's program to their specific needs and
    economic circumstances. Among the services SNAP E&T programs
    offer are job search training, work training, educational
    programs, and job retention. Some states operate their programs
    with mandatory participation, while others make it voluntary.
    Some coordinate their workfare programs through one central
    agency, while others are more separated.
        Recognizing the transformative impact that a job can have
    on someone trying to lift him or herself out of poverty, the
    2014 Farm Bill authorized SNAP E&T pilot projects to test
    innovative strategies. In March of 2015, the USDA awarded ten
    states grants that carry rigorous reporting and evaluation
    requirements in order to ensure quality and evidence-based
    information. We are fortunate to have representatives from
    three of the ten states here with us today.
        Though the final evaluation of the pilots is not
    anticipated until 2021, today's hearing will be useful to learn
    what factors influenced each state's pilot design, what
    strategies are being tested, and how these states intend to
    utilize the pilot results within their core E&T services
    offered by the state.
        I want to close my remarks with one final point. Our safety
    net programs are indispensable, but for those that are able to
    work, the safety net should be a temporary stop and not a final
    destination. This is something that has been echoed by
    Republicans and Democrats alike. In his second State of the
    Union address, Franklin Delano Roosevelt told Congress, ``Work
    must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.'' He
    extolled not only the obvious financial benefits of a job, but
    also the benefits to the mind, body, and spirit as well. And
    while President Roosevelt took a government-centric approach to
    create jobs, the core principle behind it remain, if you can
    work, you should work.
        Today, we will examine programs that help those who can
    work secure and keep a job and look at new, innovative
    approaches to make these programs more effective.
        I thank each of our witnesses again for being here and I
    look forward to hearing from you.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Walorski follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Hon. Jackie Walorski, a Representative in
                             Congress from Indiana
        Good morning and welcome to today's Nutrition Subcommittee hearing.
    Thank you to everyone for being here and thank you, in particular, to
    our witnesses for your participation and valuable insights.
        We are continuing the series of hearings looking at the past,
    present, and future of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
    or SNAP, by examining employment and training, or E&T, programs.
        While we know that a job is the surest way to get out of poverty,
    it can be difficult for individuals to find a job that matches their
    skills, or to gain the skills needed to fill the jobs available in an
    area. This is why Congress created employment and training components
    in various welfare programs to help low-income individuals obtain the
    skills and training they need to find and keep a job.
        SNAP E&T and other workforce training programs exist to ensure that
    the safety net is a temporary stop for able-bodied adults. They build
    up valuable skills. They lend a helping hand to those bouncing back
    from adversity.
        Each state SNAP E&T plan is approved and overseen by USDA. States
    are required to operate a SNAP E&T program and have considerable
    flexibility to tailor their state's program to their specific needs and
    economic circumstances.
        Among the services SNAP E&T programs offer are job search training,
    work training, educational programs, and job retention. Some states
    operate their programs with mandatory participation, while others make
    it voluntary. Some coordinate their workfare programs through one
    central agency, while others are more separated.
        Recognizing the transformative impact that a job can have on
    someone trying to lift himself or herself out of poverty, the 2014 Farm
    Bill authorized SNAP E&T pilot projects to test innovative strategies.
    In March 2015, the USDA awarded ten states grants that carry rigorous
    reporting and evaluation requirements in order to ensure quality,
    evidence-based information. We are fortunate to have representatives
    from three of the ten states here today. Though the final evaluation of
    the pilots is not anticipated until 2021, today's hearing will be
    useful to learn what factors influenced each state's pilot design, what
    strategies are being tested, and how these states intend to utilize the
    pilot results within their core E&T services offered by the state.
        I want to close my remarks with one final point. Our safety net
    programs are indispensable, but for those that are able to work, the
    safety net should be a temporary stop and not a final destination. This
    is a something that has been echoed by Republicans and Democrats alike.
    In his second State of the Union address, Franklin Delano Roosevelt
    told Congress, ``Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute
    workers.'' He extolled not only the obvious financial benefits of a
    job, but also the benefits to the mind, body, and spirit as well. And
    while President Roosevelt took a government-centric approach to
    creating jobs, the core principle behind it remain: if you can work,
    you should work.
        Today, we will examine programs that help those who can work secure
    and keep a job and look at new, innovative approaches to make these
    programs more effective.
        I thank each of our witnesses again for being here and I look
    forward to hearing from you.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE
                     IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS

        Mr. McGovern. Thank you. And I want to thank Chairwoman
    Walorski for convening this hearing, and I want to thank all of
    our witnesses for being here today to share your experiences
    and findings. I am looking forward to hearing about these pilot
    programs. As I understand it, there is a lot of innovative work
    being done, and perhaps some ideas that we can draw upon in the
    future.
        We need to remember, however, to look at these pilot
    programs in terms of the bigger picture. Employment and
    training is funded by a block grant of $90 million per year.
    This funding level hasn't been updated since 2004, and SNAP E&T
    funding is extremely limited compared to the number of
    recipients who could potentially be eligible for services. And
    it is important to note that some states aren't even using all
    of their grant funding. I point this out not to be critical of
    these jurisdictions. I know there are a lot of pressures on
    states, but there are gaps in funding, and we know we aren't
    reaching everyone who needs assistance.
        In fact, while there are about 44 million people receiving
    SNAP benefits, only about three million are served by SNAP E&T
    programs. And with the ABAWD waivers expiring, at least 500,000
    able-bodied adults are being kicked off of SNAP. A lot of these
    individuals lack education, and are unskilled. Many of them are
    veterans who are returning to the United States after serving
    our country, and trying to get reoriented back into life here,
    but without adequate E&T program funding, I am not sure what
    will happen to them.
        Given the diversity of the SNAP population, it is important
    to underscore that there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.
    And I would like to remind my colleagues of the testimony
    Secretary Vilsack gave this Committee in 2014, that the pilots
    are an important component to helping SNAP recipients towards
    self-sufficiency, but they are only one tool states can use to
    engage this high-risk population.
        I also appreciate hearing that the states testifying before
    us today use case management to achieve successes in their
    programs. I would like to remind Members of the Subcommittee
    that case management costs money. We need to provide our states
    with the resources needed to continue the good work in this
    area as well. So, I am pleased to see states taking innovative
    approaches to these employment and training pilots, and I look
    forward to learning more about how these programs can help our
    most vulnerable neighbors.
        I also just want to point out, yes, we are all dedicated to
    trying to help able-bodied people be able to get employment and
    to get a job, but we also need to understand that a big chunk
    of able-bodied people who are on SNAP right now work. And one
    of the challenges is finding a job that actually pays a livable
    wage. So contrary to the perception out there that everybody on
    SNAP doesn't work, that is just not the case. We have many,
    many, many recipients, the majority of able-bodied people, who
    do work, who work hard to support their families, but still
    earn so little that they need to rely on SNAP.
        So I look forward to the hearing, and I yield back my time.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. The chair would request that
    other Members submit their opening statements for the record so
    the witnesses may begin their testimony, and to ensure that
    there is ample time for questions. The chair would like to
    remind Members they will be recognized for questioning in order
    of seniority for Members who were here at the start of the
    hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in order of
    arrival. I appreciate Members' understanding.
        The gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, is not a Member
    of the Subcommittee, but has joined us today. Pursuant to
    Committee Rule XI, I have consulted with the Ranking Member, we
    are pleased to welcome him to join in the questioning of the
    witnesses.
        Witnesses are reminded to limit their oral statements to 5
    minutes. All of the written statements will be included in the
    record.
        I would like to welcome our witnesses to the table. I now
    recognize Ms. DelBene to introduce our first witness.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very pleased to
    introduce David Stillman from my State of Washington. He is the
    Assistant Secretary of the Economic Services Administration at
    Washington State's Department of Social and Health Services,
    where he is responsible for a number of Washington's public
    assistance programs and benefit programs. David oversees more
    than 4,000 employees, 80 offices, and a $2 billion budget, with
    a focus on transforming government to better serve families in
    need.
        Prior to accepting his current position, David served for
    over 5 years as Director of the Department's Division of Child
    Support. Among his achievements, he is a 2001 recipient of the
    Governor's Distinguished Manager Award; the highest recognition
    for a state's government manager. David received his B.A. from
    Whitman College, and his J.D. from the University of Puget
    Sound School of Law. He truly does excellent work on behalf of
    so many, and I am just thrilled that you are here with us
    today. Thanks for joining us.
        And I yield back.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. We also have Mr. Jon Anderson,
    Deputy Director, Georgia Division of Family and Children
    Services, Office of Family Independence, Atlanta, Georgia.
    Welcome. I would also like to yield now to Mr. Costa to
    introduce our final witness.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you
    for the courtesy of allowing me to participate in this
    morning's Subcommittee hearing.
        I am honored to introduce Mr. Pete Weber, a friend, a
    gentleman who I've known for many years, who retired in 2001 to
    dedicate himself to community and economic development for the
    people who live in the San Joaquin Valley.
        Mr. Weber is the founder of the Fresno Bridge Academy,
    which was recently selected by the United States Department of
    Agriculture as one of the ten national pilot programs that we
    are going to be hearing about this morning, aimed at increasing
    income and self-reliance of families eligible for food stamps.
    He makes a compelling case. I know because I have visited the
    Fresno Bridge Academy many times. His work with the Fresno
    Bridge Academy led to the James Irvine Foundation Leadership
    Award last year for creative and inspirational leadership
    benefitting the people of California. I have had the pleasure
    of knowing Pete for many years, as I have said, and come to
    respect his involvement in many of the various segments of our
    community. And for so many reasons, I want to thank you for
    that dedication to, in today's testimony, those who are
    challenged and who have very difficult economic circumstances
    by trying to provide a helping hand through the SNAP Program to
    improve their lives and make them independent. And so we will
    look forward to his testimony.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Costa. Mr. Weber is also
    accompanied today by Ms. Kim McCoy Wade, CalFresh Branch Chief,
    Department of Social Services, Sacramento, California. Thank
    you to all of our witnesses.
        Mr. Stillman, please begin when you are ready.

              STATEMENT OF DAVID STILLMAN, J.D., ASSISTANT
              SECRETARY, ECONOMIC SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
               WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH
                         SERVICES, OLYMPIA, WA

        Mr. Stillman. Good morning, Chairwoman Walorski and Ranking
    Member McGovern, and thank you also, a gracious thank you to
    Representative DelBene for her introduction.
        In Washington, under the leadership of Governor Inslee, and
    with the support of our Congressional delegation, we have
    elected to make TANF, SNAP, and the SNAP employment and
    training programs part of our WIOA state plan. I begin there,
    and hopefully, you will have the chance to look at the slide
    that has been put into your packets, that looks a little bit
    like a superhighway. I think that it is really important to
    note that, with Congress' help, we have been able to push a
    reset button on how we deliver our workforce system support
    services across the entirety of what we do and how we do it in
    Washington State.
        The WIOA priority populations intersect and overlap with
    those populations that we serve with TANF and SNAP, and so many
    other parts of our program. In fact, we are really happy to be
    able to work with our Departments of Commerce, Vocational
    Rehabilitation, the State Board for Community and Technical
    Colleges, our Department of Labor equivalent in employment
    self-sufficiency, and really through that combination of SNAP,
    employment and training, and the other parts of our basic food
    program, put this effort at the center lane of our superhighway
    to focus our attention on the alleviation of poverty.
        So that is my set of bureaucratic statements, but I would
    be remiss if I didn't mention or begin with more of a client-
    centric perspective. So I am going to talk about Taylor. Taylor
    is a single mom with two kids. She enrolled into the Basic Food
    Employment and Training Program in Seattle, part of the Seattle
    Jobs Initiative, one of our stellar community-based
    organizations, and the Highline College in the fall of 2012. I
    hope you will pay attention to this anecdote. She was working
    as an L.P.N., barely able to make ends meet, and through the
    support that she received at SJI and Highline College, she was
    able to complete her program and receive services such as
    transportation, required school items, and utility assistance.
    She took some time away to help an ailing parent, and was able
    to re-enter the program, and is now working 32 hours a week at
    $26 an hour plus benefits.
        So what do we take away from that? We should take away that
    life is not seamless, and that is so true for so many of the
    clients that we serve. It is also a takeaway that there is a
    need for the availability of coaching and career navigation
    services, support service funds, and that Taylor's success is
    equally attributable to the efforts of the local community
    investment that is involved in the SNAP employment and training
    funds.
        I will quickly make reference to the second slide that I
    provided, which shows how there is skin in the game, dollars in
    the game, that are invested from the local level on up to draw
    down these important Federal funds. This is not about a state
    bureaucracy, although many of the funds are needed to build and
    sustain infrastructure. This is about local dollars matching
    Federal dollars in order to build a really important and
    critical program for the clients that we serve.
        In addition, Washington has been blessed as being one of
    the ten states awarded a grant under the recent farm bill,
    where we are testing some additional innovative approaches for
    work registrants that receive SNAP. Our pilot Resources to
    Initiate Successful Employment, or RISE, is using that rigorous
    gold standard evaluation and a randomized control process. We
    intend to increase engagement in unsubsidized employment
    opportunities, increase participant earnings, and reduce
    reliance on public assistance by using comprehensive case
    management, the ability to attend training, and participate in
    the soft or vocational work skills referred to in our state as
    Strategies for Success, and the opportunity to engage in work-
    based learning opportunities, yet another opportunity for us to
    partner with our WIOA service providers in Washington State.
        I will finish again with another client story. J.P. entered
    RISE with high barriers: homelessness, chemical dependency,
    mental health, a criminal record, and a lack of a driver's
    license, just to name a few. With the case management support
    that we were able to provide, and as a result of assistance
    from an unexpected source; the Division of Child Support, J.P.
    was able to obtain regular visits with his son, who he had not
    had contact with over 5 years. He has now secured sobriety
    housing, reduced the barriers which has allowed him to engage
    in Strategies for Success training, and is on his way, this is
    a work in progress, to earning a chemical dependency
    professional certification, and engaged in an internship
    program.
        I invite you to think about what the takeaways are there,
    with true system integration and SNAP E&T at the heart of that
    service delivery.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stillman follows:]

       Prepared Statement of David Stillman, J.D., Assistant Secretary,
                                    Economic
      Services Administration, Washington Department of Social and Health
                             Services, Olympia, WA
    SNAP E&T, Washington's Basic Food Employment and Training Program and
            SNAP E&T Pilot, Resources to Initiate Successful Employment
    Program Success Stories
    BFET Success Story I
        Taylor enrolled into the Basic Food Employment and Training (BFET)
    program at Seattle Jobs Initiative (SJI) and Highline College in fall
    of 2012. Taylor's pay as a Licensed Practical Nurse was barely enough
    to make ends meet for her and her two children. SJI provided Taylor
    with education, career navigation, and help with transportation,
    required school related items, and utility assistance. Taylor completed
    her program with a 4.0 GPA in June of 2013.
        Taylor stepped away from the BFET program for 7 months to care for
    her ailing mother and then reengaged with SJI in December 2013. SJI
    assisted Taylor with resume' revision, mock interviews and employer
    follow ups. She also attended SJI's job seekers club to complete online
    applications. Taylor was hired in February 2014 as a registered nurse
    at Kindred Healthcare in Shoreline. She is working 32 hours per week
    and is earning $26 per hour + full benefits.
    BFET Success Story II
        Alvin, a new Washington resident, was couch surfing and looking for
    work. He attended a resource fair in October 2013 where he enrolled in
    the BFET program at Neighborhood House of Washington (NHWA). Alvin
    expressed a desire to work as a Forklift Operator since he had
    warehouse work experience, but needed certification. NHWA connected him
    with Puget Sound Training Center (PSTC), another BFET partner, to
    obtain the necessary training.
        NHWA and PSTC coordinated their employment and training services to
    assist Alvin find employment. While Alvin was completing Forklift
    Operator training at PSTC, NHWA assisted him with resume writing, mock
    interview and online applications. In addition, NHWA leveraged their
    Working for Housing Stability program to secure permanent, affordable
    housing for Alvin. In December 2013, Alvin was hired by Randstad
    Staffing as a Forklift Operator full time earning $12.75 per hour.
    Alvin is now self-sufficient paying for his own rent.
    RISE Success Story
        J.P. entered RISE with high barriers; homelessness, chemical
    dependency, mental health, criminal record, and lack of driver's
    license just to name a few. The case manager outlined a plan to assist
    with housing, engage the client in mental health services, wok on self-
    empowerment, and connect the client with the Division of Child
    Support's (DCS) Alternative Solutions program, to assist with driver's
    license reinstatement, obtaining a reasonable child support order, and
    a reduction of outstanding debt.
        As a result of the assistance from DCS, J.P. was able to obtain
    regular visits with his son, who he had not contact with for over 5
    years. J.P. secured sobriety housing and reduced significant barriers
    allowing him to engage and complete Strategies for Success (SFS)
    training. During his attendance in SFS training, J.P. developed an
    interest in using his story to give back to others. Following SFS
    training, J.P. began working towards earning Chemical Dependency
    Professional certification and has engaged in an internship program.
        These stories represent the majority of Washington's E&T
    participants. Currently, over 60 percent of BFET participants enter
    employment upon completion and will receive a ten percent wage increase
    within a year.
    Basic Food Employment & Training Overview
        The Washington State Basic Food Employment and Training (BFET)
    program \1\ is an important part of Washington State's comprehensive
    workforce development system serving the needs of low-income
    individuals, indigent workers, and employers. The vision of the BFET
    program is to assist Basic Food (SNAP) recipients in obtaining livable
    wage employment and to achieve self-sufficiency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Basic Food Employment and Training (BFET) program is
    Washington State's name for the Federal Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and Training (E&T) program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        BFET offers job search, training, education, and workfare
    activities to improve BFET participant's employment prospects and wage
    earning potential. The program serves Basic Food recipients, age 16 and
    older, who are not participating in the state's Temporary Assistance
    for Needy Families (TANF) program. Participants volunteer to take part
    in these services to improve skills and self-sufficiency.
    History of BFET
        While the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has had a
    requirement to include an employment and training component since 1998,
    most states programs have consisted of a referral to a job search
    program. This was the case in Washington until our BFET program started
    as a pilot in October 2005 in one community in Seattle. In this pilot,
    Washington leveraged the little used 50/50 funding option by leveraging
    community resources to match Federal SNAP E&T funds in order to develop
    a comprehensive job's-driven program. It began with one community
    college and four community-based organizations (CBOs). Knowing that
    these organizations are already serving low-income populations, the
    plan was to leverage each agency's current work and strengths to
    maximize the resources available to the Basic Food recipient; this
    would empower the client to achieve financial independence from public
    assistance.
        Starting small gave Washington the time to prove the concept and
    develop the required plan and tools needed to effectively deliver the
    BFET services. The partnership held strategic planning meetings to
    intentionally and thoughtfully scale what had become a successful model
    into a statewide program gradually, as to make the service delivery and
    administration sustainable. Each time the program expanded to a new
    area of the state, infrastructure was built for support.
        In Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2009, the BFET partnership included
    twelve community and technical colleges and six CBOs in four counties.
    The program grew to encompass all 34 community and technical colleges
    throughout Washington State within 5 years. As of FFY 14 BFET not only
    included the community and technical colleges, but also twenty CBOs in
    eighteen counties. Today, the BFET program includes all 34 community
    and technical colleges and 46 CBOs in 30 of the 39 counties within
    Washington State.
    BFET Service Delivery Model
        BFET leverages collaborative partnerships with state, educational
    and community agencies to provide services. These partnerships are
    formed under contracts between the Washington State Department of
    Social and Health Services (DSHS) and numerous agencies including the
    Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC),
    Employment Security Department (ESD), and several community-based
    organizations (CBOs). This collaborative partnership leverages each
    partner's particular strength. Community and technical colleges provide
    education and training to increase an individual's employability while
    ESD and CBOs assist the job ready individual in entering the job
    market. Many BFET Participants are co-enrolled with multiple agencies
    to maximize simultaneous BFET services.
        The BFET program uses the fifty percent reimbursement model to fund
    BFET services. This reimbursement model helps ensure sustainability
    because the program is not vulnerable to limited 100 % and allows for
    growth-based on each community's capacity to provide match funding.
    Since it leverages state, local and private funds, it increases
    existing capacity for colleges and CBOs. Finally, this funding model
    creates new funding streams for colleges and CBOs to pay for much
    needed support services while ensuring partnership because everyone has
    invested in the program.
        Each partner agency is a BFET ambassador to the community,
    recruiting, assessing and placing Basic Food recipients in BFET
    activities. For example, we have many CBO partners who already work
    with vulnerable populations or homeless individuals and families. These
    agencies are able to use BFET 50% funds to bolster the programs they
    are already using to serve this population; therefore increasing the
    scope of services and number of participants they can reach and
    positively impact. This increases the presence of the BFET program and
    makes the program more accessible to all Basic Food recipients.
    Program Highlights for FFY 2013-2015
    Program Growth Over Last 3 FFY[s]
        As more colleges and CBOs partnered with BFET, the number of
    participants served increase.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Year                        Number of Participants
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   FFY 2013                               16,246
                   FFY 2014                               19,115
                   FFY 2015                               20,583
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Employment Outcomes
        Washington State tracks the percentage of BFET participants who
    enter employment after participating in the BFET program.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Year                              % Employed
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   FFY 2013                                   58%
                   FFY 2014                                   61%
                   FFY 2015                                   61%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wages
        Washington State tracks the average median wage of participants
    employed after participating in the BFET program. Also tracked is the
    wage progression 1 year after participating in the BFET program.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Starting Median     Median Wage        % of Wage
           Year               Wage          after 1 year        increase
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          FFY 2013              $11.00            $11.97                9%
          FFY 2014              $11.28            $12.37               10%
          FFY 2015              $11.63            $12.97               12%
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comparative Study
        Washington State completed a comparative study of 1,165 BFET
    participants who enrolled into the BFET between January and March 2009.
    This group was compared to a similar group of Basic Food recipients
    eligible for, but not participating in BFET. The study evaluated the
    earnings gain and loss of each group for 5 years. The study
    demonstrated that BFET participants increase their earning potential
    year over year in comparison to the Basic Food only group.

    Coordinating with Other Employment and Training Programs
        BFET is part of Washington State's comprehensive workforce
    development program. As such, BFET services are integrated with other
    employment and training programs throughout the state, such as
    Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), Temporary Assistance
    for Needy Families (TANF), Employment Pipeline, Office of Refugee and
    Immigrant Assistance (ORIA), Limited English Proficiency Pathway (LEP),
    and Refugee Special Employment Needs (RSEN).
    Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
        The BFET program is a partner in the Workforce Innovation and
    Opportunity Act (WIOA) Combined state plan. At the local level
    providers integrate our services with those they are already providing
    as both WIOA and BFET service sites. BFET is recognized as a WIOA
    partner due to its increased services provided to Basic Food recipients
    not participating in the state's Temporary Assistance for Needy
    Families (TANF) program. These services include: job search, self-
    directed job search, job search training, educational services, skills
    training, and post-employment support services. BFET collaborates with
    the Workforce Training Board, ESD, and SBCTC to identify target and
    emerging industries, develop career pathways and credentials that will
    be available to participants.
    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
        DSHS has developed streamlined pathways for TANF recipients to
    transition to BFET to assist low-income families move toward long-term
    self-sufficiency.
    Employment Pipeline
        Employment Pipeline is a DSHS administered program available for
    individuals looking to find immediate employment. Employment Pipeline
    assists DSHS clients navigate the various employment and training
    programs and resources, assess employment need, complete referrals, and
    provide retention services. BFET and Employment Pipeline collaborate at
    the same community events to access resources.
    Office of Refugee and Immigrant Assistance (ORIA)
        BFET partners with ORIA to assist refugees and immigrants
    transition into Washington State's workforce. ORIA works in partnership
    with the BFET program to ensure that refugees access available
    employment and training services.
        ORIA BFET program helps people receiving Basic Food benefits get
    jobs through voluntary participation in job search, training,
    education, or workfare activities that promote self-sufficiency.
    Limited English Proficient Pathway (LEP)
        LEP program helps refugees and parents receiving Temporary
    Assistance for Needy Families benefits to become employed.
    Refugee Special Employment Needs (RSEN)
        The RSEN program helps refugees with substantial barriers to
    employment receive intensive case management, social adjustment
    counseling, and employment placement services.
    Local Integration
        BFET's reimbursement model provides program flexibility to adapt
    BFET services into local employment and training initiatives. BFET
    partners are integrating their BFET services with stable housing
    initiatives and special population needs.
    Sharing Best Practices
        Washington State has had the opportunity to assist other states in
    developing and strengthening their SNAP E&T programs. Other state
    agencies, nonprofit agencies, and educational institutions have visited
    Washington State to learn how we started our BFET program, our service
    delivery model, our strategic planning group, and technology interface.
    We continue to be happy to provide this technical assistance to our
    peers nationally.
        The BFET program hosts an annual training forum for our BFET
    partners. This venue allows for the sharing of best practices with
    partners, strengthening our coordination of services, and develops
    local partnerships. The training forum provides an opportunity for
    other state agencies to learn best practices from our local partners.
        Seattle Jobs Initiative (SJI) through their Center of Excellence (a
    grant awarded recently) is directly assisting state agencies develop
    their SNAP E&T programs. SJI was one of the original four CBOs when
    Washington State started the BFET program. They have learned first-hand
    the best practices used in the BFET program and therefore well equipped
    to introduce BFET best practices.
    Washington's SNAP E&T Pilot
        Washington was one of ten states awarded a grant under the recent
    farm bill, and will be testing innovative approaches for work
    Registrants receiving SNAP. Washington's pilot, Resources to Initiate
    Successful Employment (RISE) will use a rigorous evaluation and
    randomization process to test effectiveness. The goal of the pilot's is
    to increase engagement of Basic Food work registrants in unsubsidized
    employment opportunities; increasing participant earnings; and reducing
    reliance on public assistance.
        Washington's BFET program is an effective program, bolstering 70%
    employment outcomes. The pilot was created to focus on the 30% gap
    experienced by BFET clients who were not successful, due to the
    multiple barriers impeding their ability to obtain employment resulting
    in self-sufficiency.
        Through the RISE program, we have contracted with 24 Community
    Based Organizations (CBOs), the State Board of Community and Technical
    Colleges, the Work Force Development Council) in each pilot county, the
    Division of Child Support, and the Employment Security Department. The
    CBOs and SBCTC will be providing direct services to RISE participants.
    The WDCs role is to create work-based learning opportunities. Lastly,
    ESD has been contracted to deliver a required training, Strategies for
    Success, which was created by DSHS, CBOs, the colleges and employers
    identifying various skills needed to be successful in employment and
    maintain self-sufficiency.
    RISE Program Overview
        The goal of RISE is to enhance Washington's current BFET program by
    adding a standardized approach to comprehensive case management (CCM),
    ability to attend training in soft/work skills referred to as
    Strategies for Success (SFS), and the opportunity to engage
    participants in Work-Based Learning (WBL) opportunities.
        Comprehensive case management includes coaching, navigation and
    providing or referring participants to other services as needed. SFS
    trainings are instructor-led discussions, which include topics such as
    balancing work and life stress management, problem solving, and
    critical thinking, which assist with enabling individual's to deal
    effectively with the demands and challenges of everyday life. Case
    Managers conduct Assessments and create Individual Employment Plans to
    ensure for a successful pathway for participants. These additional
    services will assist clients in barrier resolution and gaining
    experience needed to become self-sufficient. RISE partners with the
    Division of Child Support, Alternative Solutions Program to ensure non-
    custodial parents are not arbitrarily penalized as they participate,
    and to reduce child support challenges.
        Work-based learning can include unsubsidized and subsidized
    employment, pre-apprenticeships, work-study, internships, career
    exploration and development of a career pathway, and the integration of
    vocational skills and employability skills with on-the-job-training,
    community jobs, transitional jobs, and employer engagement.
        The pilot operates in four counties: King, Pierce, Spokane, and
    Yakima and is available to SNAP work registrants who identify three or
    more barriers to employment and meet the target populations identified
    for the pilot, which are: homeless, veteran, limited English
    proficiency, the long term unemployed, and non-custodial parents owing
    arrears.
        Washington anticipates providing pilot services to 14,000
    participants over the 3 year grant period. Participants are randomly
    assigned to receive either RISE (treatment group) or BFET (the
    comparison group) services on a 50/50 ratio, with youth assigned at a
    70/30 ratio. RISE is funded 100% for the pilot term, with the
    requirement that all providers work towards identifying a 50% non-
    Federal match yearly, to ensure sustainability of these services and a
    smooth transition to operating a BFET program.
    RISE Pathway
        The RISE pathway begins with comprehensive case management focusing
    on barrier reduction. As participants move towards the ability to
    engage in activities, assessments are completed and participant are
    registered in SFS training. Comprehensive case management (CCM) plays
    an integral role in supporting the client as they engage on their
    pathway to success. Once SFS is completed, case managers complete an
    Individual Employment Plan and progress to training, education or work-
    based learning and/or job search activities and co-enrollment in BFET.
        The core services of the program are comprehensive case management,
    strategies for success, and work-based learning services. Secondary
    services include BFET services, to include: service coordination,
    navigation of financial and academic resources, job readiness training,
    job search, vocational education, and retention and career advancement
    services.
    RISE Today
        Providers continue to conduct outreach and marketing activities to
    engage potential participants. The RISE pilot has faced challenges in
    working with providers identifying potential eligible work registrants,
    initially due to DSHS's limitations in sharing client contact
    information. Recently, DSHS obtained approval to share a list of
    potential RISE participants.
        With the first year coming to a close, the program has reflected on
    the importance of the CCM throughout the RISE pathway. Preliminary
    results have shown the effectiveness of the model in providing a solid
    foundation to assist on the path of self-sufficiency.
        As we enter into year 2 of the RISE pilot, DSHS expects enrollments
    to increase, based on continued and more direct outreach by providers.
    We anticipate an increase in participants moving through the RISE
    Pathway and co-enrolling with the BFET program to obtain sustainable
    living wage.
                            PowerPoint Presentation

        The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Stillman.
        Mr. Anderson, begin when you are ready.

     STATEMENT OF JON ANDERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FAMILY
    INDEPENDENCE, GEORGIA DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES,
                              ATLANTA, GA

        Mr. Anderson. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, thank
    you for allowing me to speak to you about the receipt and use
    of this employment and training grant. Our Division believes
    that everyone that can work should work. We developed this
    grant proposal in coordination with our Georgia Department of
    Labor and local workforce investment agencies.
        In our traditional employment and training program, we
    focused our efforts on able-bodied adults without dependent
    children, or the ABAWD population. Prior to a statewide waiver
    in 2009, we ran our ABAWD Program under the mandatory option.
    The old ABAWD Program was extremely cumbersome to administer.
    It took time to hire staff, train them, and let that staff gain
    proficiency in their jobs, and that usually coincided with the
    ending of the program in that county. And Georgia has always
    used the county-to-county-based approach.
        These counties that we served were drastically different
    from year to year. This inhibited us from being successful in
    developing long-term relationships with organizations and
    community partners that could assist us with getting the ABAWDs
    employed, and most importantly, keeping them employed.
        Our ABAWD placement activities at that time consisted
    mostly of in-house functions, such as filing, answering phones,
    janitorial services. Our focus was to get the ABAWDs to meet
    the work requirement, and not get them into long-term
    employment that led to self-sufficiency. With long-term job
    placement in mind, we applied for this employment and training
    grant to more comprehensively assist our ABAWD population. We
    looked at how the medical community approaches comprehensive
    care management to find ways to address the source of why an
    ABAWD was not able to gain and sustain employment. We have
    several levels of assessment for each ABAWD, each assessment is
    validated and expanded upon to ensure that we have addressed
    all the barriers.
        The barriers to employment must be addressed if we are to
    be successful in our goal of getting ABAWDs to self-
    sufficiency. These barriers include, but are not limited to, a
    lack of education, substance abuse, mental health issues, and
    others. We understand that these individuals need hands-on,
    coordinated, intensive services to address most or all of their
    barriers. We also knew that relationship development with other
    state and private organizations was key to the success of our
    pilot. We have worked diligently to develop these relationships
    within our pilot counties.
        The importance of coordinated case management services to
    the success of an ABAWD cannot be underestimated. On the human
    side, it can be scary for some ABAWDs to make new
    relationships. Our customers develop professional relationships
    and trust with our staff. I receive an e-mail from one grant
    participant on Friday of last week that expressed her thanks to
    our staff. She described her anxiety and uncertainty of
    attending the program orientation. After attending the
    orientation, she felt inspired and now has a sense of hope
    about her future.
        The grant has allowed us to target market trends and jobs
    that will lead to long-term, successful employment.
    Coordination with our technical schools and certificate
    programs are included. Initially, our grant was to serve those
    who have been unemployed for 12 or more months. We saw very
    quickly the need to expand that to any unemployed ABAWD was
    essential to our success, so we are now serving all ABAWDs that
    are selected for the pilot.
        With the pilot implementation, we completed a phased
    rollout. As of July 1 of this year, all pilot counties are
    fully operational, and even though we are just a few months in,
    we are already seeing some great outcomes. We have been able to
    place 60 ABAWDs in a variety of jobs, some of them starting at
    $12 an hour, and some that go up to $20 an hour. One population
    that we did not anticipate to serve in our grant was drug
    felons. On July 1, 2016, Georgia removed the restriction of
    drug felons from participating in the SNAP Program.
        Our Department of Corrections and Pardons and Paroles have
    some valuable re-entry programs, however, coordinating with
    employers that are willing to take a chance on a felon is
    problematic, leading to ABAWD to a dependency on SNAP. Thus
    far, we have been able to assist at least one parolee to gain a
    $12 an hour job, and is no longer receiving SNAP benefits.
        In closing, I want to thank you again for this opportunity
    to speak to you, and the funding that you made available to
    states to try innovative programs like this, that will help us
    move more people to long-term employment and self-sufficiency.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Jon Anderson, Deputy Director, Office of Family
        Independence, Georgia Division of Family and Children Services,
                                  Atlanta, GA
    Georgia SNAP Works 2.0
              A coordinated multi-agency assessment and case management
            delivery system.

        This information is being presented for the purpose of providing
    testimony to the Members of the Agriculture Committee's Nutrition
    Subcommittee regarding the Past, Present and Future of SNAP: Innovation
    and Success in Employment and Training Programs.
    Pilot Overview
        Georgia was awarded $15 million as a grant recipient of the Fiscal
    Year 2015 Pilot Projects to Reduce Dependency and Increase Work
    Requirements and Work Effort under the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP) Grant Application. The Project, titled
    Georgia SNAP Works 2.0: A coordinated multi-agency assessment and case
    management delivery system, was written in partnership with the Georgia
    Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS), the Georgia Department
    of Labor (GDOL) and the Georgia Local Workforce Investment Agency
    (GLWIA) to provide services to Able Bodied Adults without Dependents
    (ABAWDs) in ten Georgia counties (See Map Attached).
        Through this partnership, 2,500 mandatory participants in Georgia's
    Employment and Training Program (called SNAP Works) will receive
    coordinated case management services through an integrated system that
    is based on a medical HMO. Primary case managers work closely with
    secondary case managers (specialists in partner organizations), each
    applying their respective expertise to meeting the needs of
    participants and continuously sharing information and insights via a
    centralized web-based system.
        The ten counties providing pilot services were selected based on
    their number of ABAWDs, and the location of SNAP Works offices relative
    to the GDOL and GLWIA location in the county, so as to limit
    transportation as a barrier to participation. Diversity of the client
    population was also a factor in selecting the ten counties. Georgia
    chose to operate in the second largest urban county in the state,
    several smaller rural counties, as well as three counties in the
    coastal region. The GDOL also researched the areas for the availability
    of high-demand jobs as well as proximity to a technical school for
    participants who may need further training before being able to accept
    employment.
        For the purposes of the pilot, it was determined that approximately
    2,500 individuals would be selected to be in the pilot services group,
    and approximately 2,500 in the control group as indicated by the
    Independent Evaluator. The target population was selected to be ABAWDs
    who are 18-49 years old and have been unemployed for more than 12
    months. Furthermore, all of the counties selected to provide grant
    services were designated as mandatory for participation for ABAWDs
    residing in the project area. Georgia's E&T Program operated as a
    mandatory program until the economic downturn in 2008. When the program
    operated from 2009 to 2013 as a voluntary program, the participation
    rate fell below five percent. Concerns about the ability to attract
    clients to the grant operating as a voluntary program led to the
    decision for the pilot to be a mandatory program. In a mandatory
    program, clients are contacted by mail to attend an orientation. Those
    failing to attend are sanctioned from 1 to 6 months depending on the
    number of violations, if good cause is not determined. To successfully
    engage the numbers of clients needed to participate during the 3 year
    study, this type of outreach to clients, along with consequences for
    failure to participate, were deemed necessary.
    Grant Objectives
        The intent of Georgia's pilot project was to develop and test
    methods of employment and training programs, and services specifically
    designed to increase the number of SNAP work registrants who transition
    to unsubsidized employment, increase the earned income of work
    registrants, and reduce the reliance of work registrants on public
    assistance. The project design involves a mix of strategies that
    support rapid attachment to employment, including: three-tiered
    participant assessment and employment plan development, education and
    training, job search, intensive case management, community partner
    support services, rehabilitative services for individuals with barriers
    to employment, and other necessary services such as substance abuse
    treatment. This multiple strategy approach is intended to reach
    individuals with a variety of barriers related to chronic unemployment,
    such as low skills or limited work experience.
        For the purposes of the grant, the following career pathways were
    selected: manufacturing, warehousing, transportation, medical,
    automotive, building maintenance and welding. In all of the selected
    areas, these industries have numerous training and job opportunities
    for a variety of backgrounds, interests and barriers. Many of the
    programs required for entry into the selected industry do not require a
    GED, and some do not require a background check. These career pathways
    were also selected because they are not exclusively entry-level and
    most pay above minimum wage. The original goal of the grant was to
    provide opportunities to clients to once and for all foster true and
    meaningful reduction of reliance on public SNAP assistance in the
    state, therefore the selected career pathways were intended to provide
    participants with a living wage of no less than $12.00 per hour.
        Initially, Georgia DFCS SNAP Works case managers conduct a brief
    Participant Employability Assessment to confirm the participant as a
    mandatory work registrant as well as to determine whether participants
    meet the criteria for the grant. If selected, the participant will then
    be referred to GDOL case managers for primary case management. Each
    participant is assigned a GDOL primary case manager who guides the
    participant from beginning to end, while coordinating the efforts and
    inputs of all partner case management contributions.
        Upon receipt of the referral from DFCS and the results of the
    initial assessment, GDOL staff conduct a second employability readiness
    assessment of the participant's skills, experience, education,
    credentials, work readiness/soft skills, and barriers. The primary case
    manager develops a customized Individual Employment Plan (IEP) for each
    participant, with the establishment of an occupational goal, a career
    path, potential barriers, and a mitigation plan for those barriers. If
    the GDOL primary case manager determines a participant is immediately
    employable, the customer will receive pre-employment and work readiness
    services as needed, and a staff-assisted and self-directed job search
    will begin. If the GDOL primary case manager determines the participant
    needs educational or training prerequisites prior to employment in the
    chosen occupation, the participant will be referred to the appropriate
    GLWIA for education and training services.
        The GLWIA case manager guides the participant to successful
    completion of a training program as provided through the Georgia
    Technical College System and other approved Georgia education and
    training providers. They outline available training options within the
    participant's preferred career pathway and utilize DFCS and GDOL
    assessment results, including identified barriers, to drive the
    activities. After training is completed, the case manager will refer
    participants back to GDOL for job placement and advisement on
    employment options.
    Pilot Update
        Shortly after notification of the grant award, DFCS and GDOL
    project staff began meeting to ensure that the pilot was implemented as
    outlined in the grant application. This included development of
    participant workshops, hiring grant positions, developing a
    communication protocol between the agencies, developing training
    documents, as well as GDOL developing the web-based system used for
    case management documentation.
        Additionally, we have been working closely with the U.S. Department
    of Agriculture (USDA) and its evaluation contractors, Mathematica
    Policy Research and its partner MDRC, to ensure the pilot has a strong
    study design. Training sessions were held for DFCS, GDOL and GLWIA case
    management staff beginning in November 2015. MDRC conducted training
    for grant staff on how to conduct random assignment in late January
    2016. Shortly after receiving OMB approval, random assignments to the
    grant began in February 2016 in two pilot counties. Additional counties
    were added monthly with all ten counties operational by July 1, 2016.
        Referrals to the pilot begin with DFCS inviting clients in the ten
    pilot counties to attend orientation. A report of mandatory ABAWDs is
    received weekly in each county and orientation letters are generated
    from this report. Each county has a monthly quota of participants
    required to volunteer for a chance to receive the enhanced services,
    based on the 5,000 total clients the pilot is to have served after a 24
    month enrollment period.
        A cornerstone of the evaluation is random assignment to either
    pilot services, or to the control group (regular E&T Program services),
    which will demonstrate the degree to which the pilot participants are
    successful in securing good jobs. Participants not volunteering for the
    pilot are still required to participate with the regular SNAP Works
    Program.
        Attendance at orientation was initially low, with less than 10%
    participating, resulting in the majority of the pilot counties failing
    to meet the random assignment goal. This necessitated a request to
    change the original pilot target (only inviting ABAWDs unemployed 12
    months or longer to orientation) to include to all ABAWDs regardless of
    the time unemployed. This change, along with implementing some outreach
    procedures to participants, such as placing phone calls to clients 2
    days before orientation, has improved outcomes in all ten pilot
    counties and increased interest in the pilot. SNAP eligibility staff is
    required to discuss the ABAWD status in detail with clients at SNAP
    intake and case renewal as well as to provide information on the pilot.
        With all ten counties fully operational and strategies implemented
    to attract participants and increase participation, in August 2016 DFCS
    met referral goals. Currently over \1/2\ of recipients who have been
    selected to receive pilot services have attended their first GDOL
    orientation. Of these initial referrals, there are several success
    stories that would not have been possible without the pilot and the
    partnership of DFCS, GDOL, GLWIA and other pilot partners working
    together to secure a successful outcome.
    1. Systemic Success Stories
        An essential core of Georgia's grant is a case management `primary
    care' approach, where critical community partners coordinate their
    respective services to address the employability of SNAP recipients.
    For example:

      a.  M.K. is a veteran suffering from behavioral and substance abuse
                issues that are negatively impacting his ability to search
                for--and obtain/hold--employment. Collaborative services
                from the GDOL, Veterans Services, and community substance
                abuse treatment are being coordinated by the SNAP program,
                to mitigate barriers to successful employment.

      b.  C.W. is a young lady with developmental and educational
                challenges, who has no work history. She is currently
                unable to pass prerequisite tests to enter post-secondary
                training opportunities. Collaborative services from DFCS,
                GDOL, Georgia Vocational Rehabilitative Agency and a local
                WIOA workforce partner are coordinating their efforts to
                secure a supportive and work-based on the job training
                opportunity.

      c.  Y.S. is a young man who was released from prison after being
                incarcerated for 7 years. Working with GDOL's knowledge of
                employers willing to employ people with a criminal
                background, the client was able to find a job shortly after
                joining the program with EmployBridge, making over $12.00
                an hour and is no longer receiving benefits. With the
                network of partners afforded to him through this pilot, he
                is continuing to work on the barriers many prisoners face
                at re-entry.
    2. Employment Outcomes
        All grant participants receive pre-employment workshops and career
    guidance assistance from GDOL, and receive assistance creating and
    posting an on-line resume in the Employ Georgia system. These resumes
    are searchable by employers and provide automatic job matches and
    alerts to both interested employers and the job seeker participant.
        Below are just a few examples of employment outcomes gained through
    the collaborative efforts of the program. Given the early stages of
    this evaluation study, long-term analysis will continue regarding the
    wage career laddering growth of these and all participants.

      a.  J.J. obtained employment with Chenga Security at the CDC, working
                as an Asset Protection Officer, earning $20.45 per hour.
                She is an Army Veteran with prior experience in Human
                Intelligence Collection, a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal
                Justice and a Master's Degree in Forensic Psychology, all
                of which support this career path.

      b.  A.D. obtained employment with the Argos USA Corporation working
                as a CSR Field Technician, earning $15 per hour. She
                previously had 7 years' experience as a hospitality clerk,
                with only a GED certification.

      c.  C.C. obtained employment at Transportation Security
                Administration at Hartsfield Jackson International Airport
                working as a Transportation Security Agent, earning $14 per
                hour. She previously worked as a graphic artist instructor,
                with a Bachelor's Degree in Media Arts, but was interested
                in a career change.

      d.  C.W. obtained employment with Chime Solutions working as a Health
                Plan Specialist, earning $14 per hour. He previously worked
                various jobs as a warehouse worker, baker and customer
                service representative, with a Bachelor's Degree in
                Culinary Arts. He is now most interested in pursuing a
                sales and customer service career path.

      e.  O.S. obtained employment with the Coca Cola Bottling Company as a
                Warehouse Associate/Forklift Operator, earning $13.62 per
                hour. He previously worked as a security officer and
                customer service representative. Having only a high school
                diploma, he sought a forklift operator's license to pursue
                employment in the high demand logistics career path.

      f.  R.C. obtained employment with Gainesville Fire Protection working
                as a Fire & Sprinkler System Assistant, earning $12.50 per
                hour. He previously worked as a sales representative in
                telephone communications.

      g.  D.K. obtained employment with Direct Hit Logistics (DHL) as a
                materials handler, earning @ $5,000 per quarter (@ $11 per
                hour). Having no high school diploma, she hopes to pursue
                her GED, and then continuing education as a forklift
                operator to progress in the logistics occupational path.

      h.  V.S. obtained employment with the DeKalb County Sheriff's Office
                as a Detention Officer, earning $2,507 per month (@ $14 per
                hour).
    3. Education & Training
        As envisioned by the grant, participants who are experiencing a
    credential deficit as an employment barrier are obtaining necessary
    education and training services in a demand occupational pathway.

      a.  A.M. has completed her first two certificates of completion for
                her Claims and Adjuster and Property and Casualty Agent
                pre-licensing courses, with one course remaining in
                Accident and Sickness Claims. Upon completion, she will be
                taking her State Licensing examinations.

            She worked previously as a sales clerk, and has an Associate's
                Degree in computer systems.
            At the time of this summary, this is a medium to high demand
                occupation in the Metro Atlanta area, with over 500
                openings noted in the past year and an average annual
                salary of $46,580-$75,270.

      b.  O.S. (noted in the Employment Outcomes above), obtained
                certification as a Forklift Operator.

            At the time of this summary, this is a medium to high demand
                occupation in the Metro Atlanta area, with over 540
                openings noted in the past year and an average annual
                salary of $24,030-$33,710.

      c.  T.R. is currently attending a state technical college, pursuing
                Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning technology
                certification.

            He previously worked as a warehouse pallet operator, and
                possesses a high school diploma with no post-secondary
                education.
            At the time of this summary, this is a medium to high demand
                occupation in the Metro Atlanta area, with over 530
                openings noted in the past year and an average annual
                salary of $32,020-$49,160 per year.

      d.  P.B. is just commencing activities at a local university,
                pursuing Digital Marketing credentialing.

            He previously worked as a warehouse receiving associate and
                package handler, possesses a high school diploma with no
                post-secondary education.

        With all counties currently operational, the very extensive data
    provided by the grant evaluator, Mathematica, is being used daily to
    analyze the progress in each of the ten counties to determine where the
    process is working well, where improvements are needed, and to suggest
    possible solutions. Very early analysis has shown that participants in
    rural areas still struggle with transportation needs despite being
    provided a monthly allowance, necessitating the need to find
    alternative resources. Grant partners have also met to discuss other
    ways to lessen the transportation barrier such as providing services in
    multiple locations as well as giving participants more options in
    scheduling activities to lessen the need to report to a GDOL office
    several days a week.
        There have also been a few early findings that were not expected
    when the grant was submitted. For example, more than 50% of the
    participants possess a high school diploma or higher, with fewer
    needing education or a certificate before being deemed as work ready.
    It was anticipated in the grant application that more than \1/2\ the
    pilot's participants would need to receive further training, adult
    education/GED or to obtain a certificate before being work ready.
    Challenges
        Georgia was notified in 2015 that several counties would no longer
    be eligible for the waiver exempting ABAWDs from the ABAWD time-limit
    on the receipt of benefits to three in 36 months if not participating
    in a work activity. Three of Georgia's 159 counties became time-
    limited, including Gwinnett County, one of the areas selected for the
    pilot.
        Participation from the ABAWD population in E&T services in Georgia
    has been a challenge for many years leading to a high rate of clients
    sanctioned for non-participation. The implementation of the time-limit
    ABAWD program in Gwinnett County has necessitated changing the
    orientation in that county to include an enhanced explanation of rights
    and responsibilities, with many ABAWDs still not aware that
    participation in the grant will help them remain eligible for benefits
    while working with GDOL on the job search, or while attending an
    education or training activity. Fewer clients are attending
    orientations in Gwinnett, one of the counties that was expected to have
    a large number of participants seeking further training due to a robust
    technical school presence in the area.
        Anticipating the level of participation per county and staffing
    appropriately has also been a challenge, along with staff turnover.
    Some of the smaller pilot counties have one case manager conducting
    orientations as well as meeting individually with participants.
    Adjustments had to be made to hire more staff than anticipated in some
    areas and to designate staff as floaters available to assist in
    multiple counties. This has presented an opportunity for information
    sharing between staff from partner agencies to regularly meet, talk
    about any issues and participant needs, and gain the knowledge needed
    to assist the partner agency if the need arises.
    Conclusion
        These early outcomes show the promise of this pilot for providing
    positive outcomes for the Able Bodied Adult without Dependents
    population in Georgia. In conclusion, this level of information sharing
    and skill-building among multiple partners is unprecedented and is
    providing lasting solutions needed to address barriers that have led to
    long-term unemployment and reliance on SNAP. Early indicators
    demonstrate that as the Georgia partners continue to collaborate and
    communicate, the pilot will afford much needed information on how best
    to serve the ABAWD population.
        Georgia is grateful for the opportunity to participate in this
    pilot.
    SNAP Works FFY 2017 Service Area E&T Pilot Grant Counties

                              Pilot Study Counties
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bulloch                              Douglas
    Chatham                              Glynn
    Cherokee                             Gwinnett
    Clayton                              Henry
    Dekalb                               Rockdale
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
        Mr. Weber, please begin when you are ready.

       STATEMENT OF PETER WEBER, FOUNDER, FRESNO BRIDGE ACADEMY,
       FRESNO, CA; ACCOMPANIED BY KIM McCOY WADE, J.D., CalFresh
                        BRANCH CHIEF, CALIFORNIA
             DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, SACRAMENTO, CA

        Mr. Weber. Madam Chair, Ranking Member, Members of the
    Committee, thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to
    provide this testimony. And, Congressman Costa, thank you for
    your kind introduction, and in particular for your devoted
    support of the Fresno Bridge Academy.
        The Fresno Bridge Academy is a program of Reading and
    Beyond, a nonprofit organization in Fresno County. It has been
    operating since 2010. In 2012, Reading and Beyond partnered
    with the Fresno County Department of Social Services to focus
    its attention on lifting SNAP beneficiaries out of poverty, and
    to do so in a way that generates positive returns for
    taxpayers.
        Prior to the start of the E&T pilot in January of this
    year, the Fresno Bridge Academy had enrolled more than 1,200
    families in the program, and by the end of last year, we had
    graduated more than 800 of those families. About 75 percent of
    those families entered the program unemployed. The rest of them
    were underemployed. About 81 percent of academy graduates have
    achieved success, meaning that they either obtained employment
    or significantly increased their wage income if they entered
    the program unemployed. Eighty-five percent of those placed in
    employment retained their jobs a year later, and importantly,
    within 18 months of enrollment, 30 percent of those enrolled
    had achieved full self-reliance, meaning that they had over-
    incomed.
        The Fresno Bridge Academy is a unique two-generation
    program that works with all members of a family to overcome any
    and all barriers to employment. I want to acknowledge that
    self-selection contributes to the success of the program. The
    Bridge Academy is an all-voluntary program. People don't have
    to enroll. They don't have to remain enrolled for the 18 month
    duration of the program. They do so because they are motivated
    to improve the prospects for themselves and their families.
        Let me give you an example to help illustrate how the
    program works. When USDA Under Secretary, Kevin Concannon,
    visited the Fresno Bridge Academy in December of 2015, he met a
    family that was comprised of a man, for confidentiality
    purposes we will call him Jose, his wife, who we will call
    Maria, and two teenage sons. They were both unemployed, they
    both had criminal records. They had one car. Jose had to come
    to the Fresno Bridge Academy for the most part using his
    bicycle. Their children were struggling academically. By the
    time the Under Secretary met with them, the Bridge Academy had
    worked with Jose to get him trained as a warehouse technician,
    and helped him land a job as a forklift driver in a
    manufacturing company. We had worked with Maria to help get her
    criminal record expunged. We had worked with the two children.
    Both of the parents had undergone a number of life skills
    workshops, including how to manage a household budget while
    their public assistance dollars were diminishing. Now, that was
    20 months ago. Today, Jose is still employed by the same
    company. He has received two promotions. He is now receiving a
    wage of $15 and change per hour in a county where the average
    wage is about $21 an hour. This is a job with benefits. The
    family is completely off public assistance. The oldest son just
    graduated from high school and has joined the Navy, and the
    youngest son has a 3.6 GPA.
        We have 800 more success stories like that. And as Paul
    Harvey would have said, ``And here is the rest of the story.''
    For every taxpayer dollar invested in the Fresno Bridge
    Academy, the program is returning $5.50 back to the taxpayers.
    We know that because Fresno County contracted for the
    development of a cost-benefit model that measures the economic
    impact of the program, not only on families but also on
    taxpayers. We call it the Fresno Bridge Academy ROI model. A
    document that describes the methodology used to do the ROI
    calculation has been delivered to your Committee staff.
        And I realize I am running out of time, and so I am going
    to tell you more about the E&T pilot during the Q&A portion of
    the hearing.
        [The prepared statements of Mr. Weber and Ms. McCoy Wade
    follow:]

      Prepared Statement of Peter Weber, Founder, Fresno Bridge Academy,
                                   Fresno, CA
        Reading and Beyond's Fresno Bridge Academy has demonstrated its
    ability to help families move from public assistance to self-reliance
    since 2010. In 2012, it partnered with the Fresno County Department of
    Social Services to focus primarily on SNAP beneficiaries (formerly food
    stamps, a.k.a. CalFresh in California). The need for services as
    described in this document has increased significantly since the start
    of the Great Recession. The SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) program
    has served as our primary source of funding for delivery of services to
    help SNAP beneficiaries obtain employment, boost wages and transition
    to self-sufficiency.
        Between May 2010 and December 2015, the Bridge Academy enrolled
    almost 1,200 families. As a result of being awarded a USDA grant to
    become one of ten nationwide SNAP E&T pilots to help inform public
    policy on how to increase wage income and self-sufficiency, recruitment
    has significantly accelerated. More than 1,500 families have already
    been enrolled in 2016 to participate in the pilot.
        The Fresno Bridge Academy has been effective in employment
    placement and job retention among adults who are most in need. Since
    the Bridge Academy's launch in May 2010, more than 80 percent of
    participants have attained and retained new employment and/or
    significant wage progression. This success rate allows about 30 percent
    of families to achieve self-reliance by the time of graduation from the
    18 month program.
        The Fresno Bridge Academy has achieved high cost-effectiveness by
    partnering with organizations that provide an array of services needed
    by families to overcome barriers. The model is based on eight core
    principles:

      b Dual-Generation Theory of Change. The entire family is enrolled--
            all the adults and children living in the home.

      b Comprehensive Wrap-Around Services. In addition to job training,
            assistance obtaining a GED and help with job placement, adults
            in the family are provided a wide range of life skills, and
            children in the family are mentored and tutored.

      b Mentorship. Every family is assigned a Career and Family Navigator
            who stays with the family from date of enrollment until program
            completion.

      b Place-Based. Bridge academies are located in neighborhoods of
            concentrated poverty to deliver services where people live.

      b Integrated. The FBA has achieved high cost-effectiveness by
            partnering with organizations that provide an array of services
            needed by families to overcome barriers. The FBA has a network
            of more than 175 service providers that offer a wide range of
            services to participating families. It has helped place its
            graduates with more than 200 employers.

      b Jobs With Upward Mobility. The FBA subscribes to what it calls an
            ``A-B-C'' approach, helping heads-of-household obtain the
            education, training and life skills needed to get A job, then a
            Better job, then a Career.

      b Evidence-Based. The effectiveness of FBA interventions has been
            validated by respected researchers from across the nation.

      b Outcomes-Based. The FBA rigorously measures income gains, job
            retention and attainment of self-reliance for its participating
            families, as well as program ROI for taxpayers.

        The Fresno Bridge Academy is the first E&T Program in the nation to
    build a cost-benefit model that monetizes the social benefits of the
    interventions provided. A document providing a detailed description of
    the methodology used to determine ROI has been delivered to staff of
    the House Agricultural Committee. The model uses standard economic
    discount rate techniques; cohort comparison analysis; publicly
    available data on the benefits of certain interventions; and, reasoned
    assumptions about the causal effects of improved outcomes and how long
    impacts are expected to persist.\1\ As an illustration, for the FBA
    Class that graduated in March 2014, every $1 spent on the program
    generated total benefit of $22.28, with $16.78 of the benefits going to
    the participating families and $5.50 going to taxpayers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ROI assumptions (including Causal Percentage and Fadeout
    Factor) were determined based upon the review of ROI models and
    research studies which employed similar methods.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Fresno Bridge Academy is successful because of its commitment
    to research-based and evidence-based practices. The Fresno Bridge
    Academy components have been validated by researchers from Chapin Hall
    at the University of Chicago (2012). Four specific characteristics of
    successful workforce development programs were uncovered by these
    researchers, including the following: (1) providing support services
    and case management; (2) flexible programming and service delivery; (3)
    family engagement in programs; and (4) focusing on the quality of job
    placement.
        Research conducted by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    also supports the Fresno Bridge Academy model. These researchers
    conducted a scan of common characteristics across effective E&T
    programs or approaches, which include providing education or
    remediation to allow individuals with low educational levels to access
    industry-specific training programs; individualized, hands-on-work to
    build life-skills (setting goals, time management, making good
    decisions, stress management, etc.); and, provision of supportive
    services (transportation and flexible funds to help purchase items to
    help individuals work or look for work). All of these elements are
    embedded within the Fresno Bridge Academy model.
        In a more recent study by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (2014),
    researchers investigated the effectiveness of a ``two-generation
    approach'' (also known as ``dual generation approach'') in helping
    families achieve economic self-reliance, which is the basis of the
    Fresno Bridge Academy model. Researchers discovered that some of the
    Federal and state programs designed to help low-income families
    overcome their daily challenges operate in isolation from one another;
    and that these programs focused on either the children or parents, but
    not both. This study details the three key components of a two-
    generation strategy, all embedded within the Fresno Bridge Academy
    model: ``(1) Provide parents with multiple pathways to get family-
    supporting jobs and achieve financial stability; (2) Ensure access to
    high-quality early childhood education and enriching elementary school
    experiences; and, (3) Equip parents to better support their children
    socially and emotionally and to advocate for their kids' education.''
        Due to the success of the model, the Fresno Bridge Academy was
    selected as one of ten national SNAP E&T pilots to significantly scale-
    up services and test innovative strategies that may speed the process
    of families attaining self-reliance. The Fresno Bridge Academy has been
    expanded from three to nine sites and will now be able to serve more
    than 2,000 additional families. The Pilot Program targets work
    registrants in specific urban and rural populations of Fresno County
    that are comparable to those of the neediest counties in California;
    moreover, these areas exhibit both a high rate of poverty (more than
    20%) and unemployment (more than 8%).
        The Fresno Bridge Academy's SNAP E&T Pilot Program builds on the
    traditional Bridge Academy Model, adding the following interventions:

      1.  Wage subsidies. Although we only offer wage subsidies for
                employers willing to hire the hardest to employ, or to
                employers offering premium wages, we thought the program
                would benefit by having some ability to compete with the
                TANF program, which offers wage subsidies.

      2.  Education Navigators. Many of the people we serve do not have
                high school diplomas or GED's. We have found that
                traditional GED programs are too slow and impersonal. We
                have an in-house, highly individualized program that
                enables our participants to get their GED's much faster.
                And those same navigators help support the vocational
                training of our participants.

      2.  Incentives. The Bridge Academy is an entirely voluntary program.
                SNAP beneficiaries are not required to enroll and don't
                have to remain enrolled for 18 months. We find that
                participants will sometimes want to drop out of the program
                after they have been placed in a job. We want them to stay
                enrolled, so we offer them a small cash benefit payable
                only if they complete the 18 month program. And we offer
                them a small cash benefit for every unit of instruction
                they complete to continue to upgrade their skills after
                they have been placed in employment.

        The program conducts an in-depth assessment to determine the
    participant's appropriate ``pathway'' or case plan and potential family
    needs that may be a barrier to sustained employment. Once the
    participant's case plan has been developed they will be placed in one
    or more (typically more) of the following activities:
    1. Education
      a.  Academic support geared to assist participants in obtaining their
                GED or High School Diploma and/or Associate's or Bachelor's
                Degree.

      b.  Structured activities designed to improve language proficiency,
                math and reading skills, digital literacy, test taking
                skills, and other subjects depending on the needs of the
                participants.
    2. Job Training
      a.  Following an assessment process, participants are enrolled in
                vocational training suited to their aptitudes and interests
                and for jobs that are available in the local economy.
    3. Job Search
      a.  Group and one-on-one soft skills development including resume
                preparation, cover letter writing, interviewing strategies,
                up-to-date job search techniques, etc.;

      b.  Direct assistance with job search and applications including
                identifying best company and positions matches based on
                their hard skills and interests.
    4. Wraparound Services
      a.  On-going case management conducted by Career/Family Navigators.

      b.  Additional topics to be addressed: nutrition, health, civic
                engagement, parenting, housing, Earned Income Tax Credit
                (EITC), financial literacy, and financial management.

      c.  Resolution of various employment barriers including; childcare,
                transportation, clothing, tools, work licenses, housing,
                and enrollment among others.

      d.  Mentoring and tutoring of children, particularly to help them
                read and do math at grade level, get exposure to the arts,
                and show up for class.
    5. Subsidized Employment
      a.  Subsidized employment will be provided to approximately \1/3\ of
                participants to encourage employers to hire the hardest to
                hire SNAP recipients, or to employers offering premium
                wages.

        In order to enhance upward mobility of participants, the pilot
    program will partner with training organizations to offer more career
    ladder programs in the evenings and weekends. A partnership with the
    Fresno County Economic Development Corporation is in place to assist in
    placing participants in high-wage, high-demand occupations in high-
    growth industry clusters. Participants will be offered incentives to
    continue to upgrade their skills after first employment. The program
    will provide 1 year retention monitoring to ensure sustainability of
    outcomes and participants will be provided incentives to retain contact
    with Career & Family Navigators.
        The Pilot participants are being recruited and enrolled over a
    period of 18 months that started in late January 2016, and families
    will remain enrolled for approximately 18 months, with total Pilot
    duration of 36 months. In accordance with a protocol developed with
    Mathematica, the program evaluator contracted by the USDA Food and
    Nutrition Services Agency, participants are assigned to one of three
    groups:

      b One group will receive the standard Bridge Academy services;

      b The second group will receive the enhanced services described
            above; and

      b The third group will receive no services.

        Outcomes will be evaluated against a similarly sized control group
    with comparable demographic characteristics. The Fresno Bridge
    Academy's SNAP E&T Pilot Program is aimed at overcoming past obstacles
    to attainment of self-reliance and at heightening the program's ability
    to achieve two overarching goals: (1) Participants are self-reliant and
    no longer receiving SNAP benefits, and (2) Family quality of life has
    improved. Specifically, the primary goals of the pilot program are as
    follows:

       Replicability will be demonstrated by expanding to six urban
            neighborhoods and three rural communities in Fresno County.

       At least 75% of the participants in the program will obtain
            and retain employment or receive wage increases at least 50%
            higher than the then-current rate of inflation;

       At least 45% of the participants will achieve self-reliance
            and will no longer be eligible for receipt of SNAP benefits;
            and

       The pilot will produce a minimum 4 to 1 return on investment
            to taxpayers, i.e., for every $1 of taxpayer funds expended,
            the pilot will produce a verifiable reduction of $4 in taxpayer
            outlays for SNAP benefits and an increase in the income taxes
            paid by the program participants.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Kim McCoy Wade, J.D., CalFresh Branch Chief,
            California Department of Social Services, Sacramento, CA
        California is moving to significantly expand both the quantity and
    quality of Employment & Training (E&T) services offered by the 58
    county human services agencies to the 4.4 million participants in SNAP
    (known as CalFresh). The state, the counties, private service
    providers, employers and other workforce stakeholders are working in
    partnership to assist more participants than ever before in obtaining
    good jobs, securing better wages, and attaining careers that lead to
    self-sufficiency.
        SNAP E&T Priorities: A total of 33 of California's 58 county human
    services agencies, serving the majority of the state's SNAP E&T
    eligible population, plan to offer a voluntary SNAP E&T program in the
    upcoming Federal fiscal year, up from 25 counties in the current year.
    The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) is prioritizing
    three strategies to support and strengthen California counties' SNAP
    E&T programs:

      1.  Outcomes. CDSS is focused on measuring outcomes for participants
                by strengthening reporting systems throughout the state. To
                this end, CDSS will facilitate the collection of employment
                and wage data for SNAP E&T programs through a new data
                sharing agreement with the California Employment
                Development Department (EDD). This agreement is in part a
                result of the existing outcome measurement efforts of
                counties like San Francisco, which in tracking 752
                participants found that: 46% have earnings 18 months after
                exiting E&T; 53% are no longer receiving SNAP benefits at
                that point; and overall, there is a 123% increase in
                earnings from 6 months pre- and 6 months post-E&T
                participation. CDSS is also exploring the possibility of
                joining a centralized, statewide data-matching workforce
                hub that may be accessed by local and regional workforce
                boards, SNAP E&T programs, and other workforce programs to
                support accurate, comprehensive data collection across this
                sector.

      2.  Comprehensive Job-Driven Approach. California counties are
                weaving together job training, especially vocational and
                certificate programs; barrier removal; and case management
                to deliver effective workforce services to SNAP
                participants that lead to better jobs, wages, and careers.
                As an example of this effort, CDSS and our county partners
                are forging a new partnership with the state's workforce
                development system, as many priority populations, services
                and outcomes align with SNAP E&T. CDSS also has been chosen
                as one of ten states to participate in the ``SNAP to
                Skills'' program administered by the USDA Food and
                Nutrition Service. SNAP to Skills provides multifaceted
                technical assistance in the design and development of
                better and stronger job-driven SNAP E&T programs. These
                models provide for tailoring to the local and regional job-
                market--both to the employment sectors and to the employee
                population, including special populations like veterans,
                those recently released from prison, and first generation
                college students.

      3.  Public-Private Partnerships to Deliver E&T Services. Next fiscal
                year, California's 33 SNAP E&T counties will contract with
                more than 40 organizations across the state, most of which
                are nonprofit agencies. Over 20% of county E&T budgets are
                for these contractual services, an increase of $7.8 million
                over the current fiscal year. Many contracts are for third-
                party reimbursement programs, which are programs operated
                by non-government providers that self-fund at least \1/2\
                of their costs to serve the SNAP population and receive the
                available Federal match. Under this model, Fresno County is
                participating in the national, ten site pilot with Reading
                and Beyond's Bridges Academy. Other counties are piloting
                an innovative third-party intermediary model known as
                ``Fresh Success:'' under this model, Sacramento and Santa
                Clara counties are partnering with their local community
                colleges and Contra Costa County with a local nonprofit
                organization to deliver E&T services.

        Recommendations: Based on the experiences of CDSS and the counties
    operating and expanding SNAP E&T, we respectfully recommend for the
    Committee's consideration:

      1.  Further Alignment between Workforce Investments, such as those
                funded through SNAP, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
                (TANF), and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
                (WIOA), to deliver unified services to our families and
                streamline administration, reporting, and service delivery.

      2.  Allow E&T Wage Subsidies to Engage More Employers, especially to
                encourage taking a chance on more vulnerable employees. San
                Francisco County's JOBS NOW! uses local funds to partner
                with private employers to great success. Allowing SNAP E&T
                funds to be used for subsidized wages would allow more
                counties and more employers to participate.

      3.  Continue 100% and 50/50 Match Funding to ensure high-quality
                services, rigorous outcome measurement, and effective
                oversight.

        Work Success Stories: The state, counties, private service
    providers, employers, and other stakeholders are working together with
    USDA to provide rigorous outcome data. Equally compelling are the
    individual stories of graduates of SNAP E&T programs, like this one
    from San Francisco:

              Hello, my name is Denise Baker and I'm fifty years old. I was
            born and raised in Oklahoma City. I came from a middle class
            family of six. I didn't have it rough growing up. I came from a
            family who valued morals and ethics. But when I became an
            adult, I chose the wrong path in life chasing the cares of this
            world and going down the wrong path knowing right from wrong.
            And yet, I chose to be a part of the wrong crowd.
              Because I chose wrong ways, it took me to places I didn't
            want to be in like jails and prison and that became my way of
            life for the next 27 years. It was then when I hit rock bottom
            because of the vicious cycle of drug use that I couldn't seem
            to change my life in an atmosphere that was unhealthy for me
            that I became suicidal. And before I could carry it out, I
            heard a voice inside me saying, ``Call your daughter who lives
            in California!'' So I did. I told her what was going on in my
            life and I needed to change. She sent for me and from that very
            moment, my life changed forever! She brought me to a place in
            San Francisco in hopes to find help for me, and she did. Here
            is where hope became possible.
              I applied for General Assistance and SNAP benefits and the
            job resources became unlimited! I started participating in SNAP
            E&T activities and heard about the JOBS NOW! program. The UCSF
            EXCEL internship program is part of the wage subsidy tier of
            JOBS NOW! After being accepted to the program I participated in
            a 10 week classroom skills training with one of the E&T
            training providers, and learned how to use Microsoft Office,
            professional communication, and improved my public speaking
            skills by presenting on topics to my classmates.
              After completing the skills training, I started a 4 month
            subsidized employment internship with the UCSF Medical Center.
            After completing my internship I was offered a full-time
            temporary position with the UCSF Medical Center Human Resources
            department. I am responsible for turning paper into digital and
            I love my job and the people I work for and with. It has been
            very rewarding for me to be a part of a society of working
            people.
              Through this experience I have a new-found respect for people
            who work hard every day to provide for their families while
            also helping others improve their work skills. Thanks to
            programs like SNAP E&T and JOBS NOW!, I now believe in myself
            and know that I am employable and can become a productive
            member of society by doing the right thing because it's the
            right thing to do!
              Thank you for taking a chance on someone like me who didn't
            believe that I could be a success story. I am doing great and
            I'm still employed with UCSF Medical Center to this very day.
            There are so many people who have not been given this
            opportunity for change. I feel programs like SNAP E&T in San
            Francisco help a lot of people come out of their rut and low to
            no income situations.

        Thank you for including the California Department of Social
    Services, our counties, our clients, and our partners in this important
    discussion of Employment and Training opportunities, so more
    participants in SNAP can achieve better jobs, wages, and careers.

        The Chairwoman. Thank you. Thank you, panel.
        We understand that each state operates a SNAP employment
    and training program. Can you three just quickly talk about
    each of your states' core E&T program, and what services are
    offered across the state, including how you engage recipients
    to begin with? Mr. Stillman, I will just start with you, if you
    could quickly summarize that.
        Mr. Stillman. Thank you very much for the question, Madam
    Chair.
        The core of the program really is focused through a
    partnership with community-based organizations and community
    colleges. In Washington State, we were very fortunate in the
    mid-1990s to have some very creative folks who came together in
    the Seattle area to build a relationship between the
    nonprofits, community-based organizations and the community
    college, to meet a need for clients who were leaving TANF,
    still on food assistance, and our mantra is, ``Get a job, keep
    a job, earn more money.'' In that context, they were leaving
    public assistance but not really succeeding in terms of having
    a livable wage job. So our legislature and, of course, with the
    support of Federal funding, we took the opportunity to spread
    that across the entire state. The core of our program is in
    each and every community college with foundational
    relationships, and with the community-based organizations and
    nonprofits.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. And, Mr. Anderson, and,
    specifically, how do you engage recipients?
        Mr. Anderson. We engage our recipients, we send out letters
    to them, and we have orientation that they come in and we
    explain the workfare program and how to comply with that. We
    have one county where we have a contract with our Goodwill that
    has ten certificate programs that can help employees get to
    jobs that can help them gain good, long-term employment. It is
    voluntary, so participation in the voluntary program is
    disappointing to us. We started, for example, in the beginning
    of January 2016, we had 6,100 ABAWDs participating in the three
    counties that we were operating in, and at the expiration of
    the 3 month time limit we were down to 2,590 that were actually
    participating in jobs or workfare that could allow them to
    continue to receive benefits.
        The Chairwoman. I appreciate it. Mr. Weber, can you also
    discuss your core program and how you engage recipients?
        Mr. Weber. Sure. We are place-based. We have nine academies
    within Fresno County. The county Department of Social Services
    gives us the contact information for every single SNAP
    beneficiary within those neighborhoods. We then call them,
    invite them in to a meeting in which we discuss the program
    with them, and then enroll those who are interested in signing
    up for what is an 18 month program.
        The core services are comprehensive. We provide everything
    from education support to employment training, to life skills
    training, and we also engage the children. We have a separate
    source of funding to engage the children so that we are
    addressing the family holistically.
        The Chairwoman. I appreciate it. Mr. Anderson, just a real
    quick follow-up. We know that each state can require mandatory
    participation of SNAP recipients subject to the work
    requirements, however, the majority of states offer voluntary
    participation. What factors did Georgia consider when
    implementing mandatory participation in both the core E&T
    program, as well as to test mandatory participation in the
    pilot projects? Can you speak about that?
        Mr. Anderson. Sure, I would be happy to. Traditionally, we
    ran the program pilot in 2009 as a mandatory program, and
    participation even at that time our success rates were fairly
    low, just because we didn't have those coordinated services to
    address all the barriers that the ABAWDs may need. In 2009, we
    switched over to a voluntary program as all states received a
    waiver with that, and we are beginning to see in those areas
    that there was a need to change our focus to not just helping
    get to the work requirement to more helping them become self-
    sufficient, find jobs that could become self-sufficient. As
    part of our grant, we were able to look with our other partner
    agencies that focused on work to try to find ways in emerging
    market trends and jobs that would be coming available for these
    types of individuals that don't have college degrees, to get
    certificate programs or some vocational training that can help
    them get into good-paying jobs.
        The Chairwoman. And then just quickly, how do you
    interface, Mr. Anderson, with TANF, for example?
        Mr. Anderson. With the TANF Program, we currently separate,
    we have siloed thinking on that. Our TANF Program focuses more
    on families with small children, and trying to help the
    pregnant women and parents with small children get employment.
    And then on the E&T grant, we have always focused on the other
    side of the population; those adults that don't have children,
    to try to focus in that area. They have had siloed thinking in
    the past. We have started thinking more about, as we look at
    the employment services side of it, a lot of the basic job
    responsibilities and functions are similar on developing
    resources, and trying to help individuals address barriers.
        In one of our pilot counties, we have started looking at
    combining the supervision, not mixing the responsibilities of
    the actual employee, but combining the supervision of the TANF
    employment services staff with the pilot county employment and
    training staff so that we are maximizing our resources in both
    programs.
        The Chairwoman. Okay. I appreciate it.
        I will have to stop you there. I now recognize Ranking
    Member McGovern, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you. This is to Ms. McCoy Wade or Mr.
    Weber. As you know, SNAP has a 3 month time limit for adults
    not raising minor children. If those individuals cannot find a
    job or a qualifying job training program within 3 months of
    receiving SNAP then they are cut off. States can waive the time
    limit in areas with high unemployment. California is currently
    taking advantage of the waiver. Presumably, that has been
    important, since some parts of your state continue to have
    unemployment that exceeds ten percent.
        Now, some in Congress have called to end the waivers
    altogether. What would that mean for California? Do we provide
    you with enough funding to create qualifying work slots for
    this group, and can they find them elsewhere, or would some
    individuals who are willing to work be cut off from food
    assistance?
        Ms. McCoy Wade. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
    Yes, in California, we are anticipating the end of the waiver
    in parts of the state in about 18 months, and we are engaged in
    a lot of planning on that because we do think the rule would be
    very harshly felt by families. And it is very complicated,
    frankly, to administer and administer accurately.
        No, we do not have enough jobs and enough job training and
    enough job slots. We are currently very excited that about \1/
    2\ of our counties currently have a voluntary E&T program, and
    as of October, eight more are coming on. So we are growing our
    capacity, but not nearly enough to meet the hundreds of
    thousands of folks in California who are working and are
    looking to improve their skills.
        Mr. McGovern. Now, some of my colleagues have called for
    TANF-style work requirements in SNAP. Could we accomplish the
    kinds of innovative programming that you provide under a TANF
    work requirement framework in SNAP, what do you think of that
    approach for the SNAP Program?
        Ms. McCoy Wade. Well, we are learning from our colleagues
    in Washington that the best approach really is to put skills
    and training at the front of the line, and give folks that work
    experience that allow them to have a long-term, life-changing
    path to better wages and a better career. So that is the model
    that we are going for. What is the assessment up-front, that
    case management, that barrier reduction that puts them on a
    path to sustainability.
        Mr. McGovern. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. If I may add to that, Congressman. And this is a
    perspective from a businessperson. I am a retired CEO of a
    couple of companies.
        I would rather hire somebody who wants to work, rather than
    somebody who is being forced to work.
        Mr. McGovern. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. I would also suggest from a taxpayer perspective
    that an investment in developing the skills and capacities so
    that people can get a job and sustain that job over time, is a
    very important consideration for this Committee.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you. Let me ask another question. Ms.
    McCoy Wade, Mr. Weber, or Mr. Stillman. Low-income adults can
    face a lot of challenges to finding a job, or finding a job
    with advancement opportunities. Two of the biggest problems I
    hear that people have are with transportation and affordable
    child care. Without those in place, even skilled workers can
    find it hard to take and keep a job. Can you tell me if these
    are real concerns for your clients, and give us some examples.
    And SNAP E&T gives states Federal matching funds to provide
    transportation and child care for people in job training
    programs. Is that important and could we do more? What would
    you recommend to Congress on that front?
        Mr. Stillman. I could not recommend more highly the
    utilization of resources to address transportation issues.
    After housing, transportation is really the second highest cost
    barrier to a struggling family living in poverty or living on
    low wages. And it is really critically important that we
    consider those challenges. Even in a place like Seattle which
    has some wonderful public transportation, going north and south
    is great, going east and west is not. And so we have to take
    into consideration, even in a community like that where we can
    see the benefits of mass transportation, that there are
    transportation challenges that exist for our clients.
        I will finish by saying I was remiss in not talking about
    how many clients we have: 21,000 clients avail themselves in
    Washington State, and one of the ways we do address that is
    through having an integrated service delivery system. So the
    child care, for example, that you referenced, I completely
    agree that it is necessary for families to have access to child
    care, along with all the other supports. Fortunately, in
    Washington State, we deliver those services relatively
    seamlessly in an intake process that includes TANF, SNAP, child
    care, and even some of our Medicaid Programs. So we have the
    opportunity to interface with our clients in a single setting,
    and then plant the seed, if you are on TANF but leave TANF,
    don't forget there is SNAP E&T in your future.
        Mr. McGovern. Mr. Weber, Ms. McCoy Wade?
        Mr. Weber. Yes, thank you. I would concur with that. Let me
    explain that in Fresno, we have nine sites; six of them urban,
    three of them rural. Particularly, in the rural communities,
    transportation is really, really critical because the
    availability of jobs is constrained.
        As to child care, it is the single funding issue that we
    struggle with the most. It is a real problem.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you. Thank you.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. Congressman Benishek, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Weber, I was kind of interested in this
    multigenerational thing of how you engage the whole family.
    What are you doing with the kids?
        That is the first thing that popped into my mind.
        Mr. Weber. Yes. When a family is enrolled with the Fresno
    Bridge Academy, we do two assessments. One assessment is of the
    head of household, to see what kind of vocational training,
    what kind of education they need. A lot of these people don't
    have high school degrees, so we have to do GEDs, and so on and
    so forth. Then we try to connect that to jobs that are
    available in the current economy. What are their aptitudes,
    interests, what vocational training can we deliver to them. The
    second assessment is of the family as a unit. What are the
    family's issues and needs? And with regards specifically to the
    children in the family, our focus is primarily on four
    indicators. Are they reading at grade level, are they doing
    math at grade level, are they getting exposure to the arts, are
    they showing up for class? If they are not, then we will work
    with them. We'll refer them. We have referrals. We work with
    175 different service providers in Fresno County to deliver all
    kinds of services to adults as well as to children.
        Mr. Benishek. Like making sure the kids get to school?
        Mr. Weber. We work to make sure that kids get to school.
    Let me explain, Congressman, that our first conversation with a
    family that has children is always about the children. It is
    about the children and how they are doing, because in the end,
    we have to motivate the adults in the family to want to work.
    And if you are going to motivate them to work, the best way to
    do that is by encouraging them to think about the future of
    their kids. And then you turn the conversation to how do we
    help you become the best possible role model for your children.
    That is our approach.
        Mr. Benishek. And that seems to work then?
        Mr. Weber. It works very well. More than 80 percent of our
    families are finding success.
        Mr. Benishek. These are the people that come to you though.
    They pretty much have to come to you?
        Mr. Weber. We call them and then invite them to an
    orientation meeting, and then explain what the program is. We
    ask them to make a commitment for 18 months. Now, we generally
    place them in jobs, most of them, within the first 6 months,
    but we stay with them because we want to make sure that the
    outcomes are sustained.
        Mr. Benishek. How many people, that you contact, end up
    participating in the program?
        Mr. Weber. It is a difficult question to answer because we
    get the contact information from the county. We make the calls
    and then oftentimes the numbers are no longer good, the people
    aren't there----
        Mr. Benishek. What about the people that actually show up
    for one visit, how many of those people end up participating in
    the program?
        Mr. Weber. About 77 percent of the people who come to our
    orientation meetings signed up.
        Mr. Benishek. Well, no, I appreciate your work in this,
    and, frankly, having a private-public partnership, to me, is
    really the way to go because with most of these comprehensive
    services, there are people in the community that are better
    attuned to helping those folks than the feds, frankly. So I
    really appreciate the work that you are doing, and the
    opportunity to learn more about it.
        So what is the obstacle for doing this more widely through
    the state? Is it simply the funding? Is most of your funding
    then coming from the E&T funds that are provided?
        Mr. Weber. We are funding-constrained. We think that we
    ought to be able to do what we are doing. We are currently
    expanding, well, we have expanded into a second county. We are
    going to expand into two more counties in October of this year.
        Mr. Benishek. So how much money exactly are you spending
    then in Fresno? What is the amount of your spending to do this
    program you are talking about?
        Mr. Weber. This is going to be probably a little
    extraordinary, but our cost per family is $1,800 per family
    over 18 months. The reason we are so cost-effective is because
    we access every possible service available to families through
    other organizations, through community colleges, through the
    ROP Programs, through the WIOA, through countless nonprofit
    organizations. One of our eight core principles is we don't
    duplicate anything that already exists. So we are very, very
    cost-effective, and that is the reason we are able to produce
    such a high return for taxpayers on the investment of taxpayer
    dollars.
        Mr. Benishek. All right, thank you very much, all of you,
    for your testimony today. And, Mr. Weber, I am out of time.
    Thanks.
        Mr. Weber. Yes, sir.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. I recognize Congresswoman
    DelBene, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to all of
    you for being with us today.
        I get to brag a little bit about my state today because
    Washington State has really been a true leader in E&T programs.
    In May 2013, I introduced the Enhancing Employment and Training
    Through Education Act, a 3 year competitive grant fund to
    encourage states to provide targeted employment and training
    programs, similar to what we have had in Washington State. We
    had a very successful program called Basic Food Employment and
    Training, what we call BFET, and this bill was the basis for
    the SNAP E&T pilots that were in the farm bill.
        As many know, E&T programs differ widely in participation
    and success, and even at the height of the recession, 60
    percent of those enrolled in Washington's BFET Program found
    employment, and in one study less than \1/2\ remained on
    government assistance 2 years after the program. This is the
    kind of success that Washington State has produced, and the
    kind of success we are all hoping to see in these pilots.
    Helping people find good-paying, long-term employment in a
    high-demand industry is the best way to ensure that everyone
    has access to economic opportunities.
        And these investments we make not only have an incredible
    effect on our economy, but also on people's lives, so I thank
    you so much for all of the work that you are doing.
        Mr. Stillman, you talked a little bit in your testimony
    about this, but can you expand on what we have learned from the
    BFET Program, the original program, that informed the new pilot
    program that we have, RISE, and what you look forward to
    learning from RISE that we can use, going forward?
        Mr. Stillman. To reiterate just a bit, what we have learned
    from the original program is that community engagement matters,
    and the phrase that I used earlier, ``Having skin in the
    game,'' matters. So those are things that bring together that
    alchemical combination of local partnership, local educational
    partnership, local community-based organization partnership,
    employers and industries in a way that is completely different
    than a top-down-administered program. And it is really that
    opportunity that we are trying to leverage as we look at the
    experience of our clients in that prior program. Just because
    we are super proud of what we did before doesn't mean that we
    didn't take note of the, let's say, 35 percent or so of the
    clients who were still struggling within the program. And we
    looked at things like housing, we looked at the criminal
    justice involvement, we looked at transportation, and
    recognized that there are some things in common that we really
    need to focus our attention on if we are going to lift everyone
    up through that process.
        Just as a closing note, as your comments referenced, even
    during the post-recession time, we had some wonderful success.
    The last slide that I provided all of you shows a cohort of
    progression from that 2009 timeframe forward. And it is really
    building on that experience, building on what we have learned
    about the needs of families, the needs of individuals, whether
    they are ABAWDs or families, how do we deliver tailored and
    unique services that also align with sector needs, business
    needs, in a way that can help grow the entire economy and grow
    families.
        Ms. DelBene. And why do you think some states fail to make
    use of all their E&T funds, and what difference has this made
    for Washington State?
        Mr. Stillman. Boy, commenting on why other states won't
    take advantage of that is a challenge for me. Perhaps I should
    start by saying thank you, because in some odd way, the failure
    of other states to take advantage of that has meant that we
    have had more opportunity in some instances to draw down some
    additional resources. That is a sad commentary in terms of a
    loss. I would say, if I were trying to put on the hat of a
    state that hadn't done this, it is that sometimes we get caught
    up in simply trying to deliver services within a silo. We are
    going to do TANF, we are going to do SNAP, we are going to do
    child care, we are going to do Medicaid, we are going to do all
    of these things together, and we fail to have a view of the
    client across that set of systems, and really understand that
    life does happen to our clients and we need to be able to
    deliver those services in a much more braided way. But day-to-
    day demands of a bureaucracy and service delivery can be
    extremely challenging and it can be very difficult to pull back
    and see that big picture.
        Ms. DelBene. Yes. Thank you so much. I am running out of
    time and so I yield back.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. Mr. Crawford, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
        The culture today, we put an awful lot of emphasis on a
    need for a 4 year degree to be successful in this country, and
    unfortunately, we do that to the detriment of our youth. But we
    have a huge gap as a result in technical and vocational jobs
    that are good-paying jobs that aren't being filled. I am
    wondering how you, and this is to all of you, I am wondering
    how you are using E&T programs to meet the job needs within
    your state and communities in light of the gap in skills in
    vocational occupations. Anybody want to weigh-in on that?
        Mr. Stillman. So if I may, I would be happy to jump in. In
    my role at the Department of Social and Health Services, I have
    the advantage of sitting on the Washington State Workforce
    Board. As part of the Workforce Board, we have adopted not just
    college-ready but career-ready as part of our thinking, and it
    really speaks to that point that you brought up about
    vocational readiness, community college certificates, and other
    gateways or doorways to employment and to success. We need to
    be less narrow-minded, if you will, about how we prepare our
    students in middle school, high school, and even into
    apprenticeships and other non-4 year college settings. That is
    a critical part of what we need to do.
        Once again, by being part of a larger system and talking
    about this from the perspective of the individual and the
    family, we can see those opportunities and see where a single
    focus on a 4 year college education is really a disadvantage to
    this larger group of people.
        Mr. Crawford. Anybody else want to weigh-in on that?
        Ms. McCoy Wade. Sure. Just three comments, in California,
    certainly, one of the fastest growing components for us is
    vocational training and certificate training. That is
    absolutely a growth area for us. Second, we have a new
    agreement with the community college system in California to
    make sure the community colleges and E&T are a bridge. And
    third, by joining our WIOA folks at the table, the WIOA plan in
    California specifically says tailor to the local and regional
    job market. It is not a job to nowhere, it is a job to a job in
    your community. That is very much a core part of our planning.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I appreciate that. One of the
    other things that we hear repeatedly, at least in my district,
    is the decline of soft skills in the workplace. I wonder if you
    might weigh-in on soft skills development possibly as a pre-
    employment type of a workshop or something along those lines,
    because we hear that repeatedly from our employers because they
    feel like we can train this individual ourselves, but the soft
    skills are not being modeled appropriately. When we talk about
    mentorship programs or pre-employment, can you comment on that?
        Mr. Weber. Yes. You are absolutely right, we hear that
    repeatedly from employers in our area: we can train the hard
    skills, just give us people who will show up for work and so
    on. And they love people coming out of the Fresno Bridge
    Academy because they have already shown that they will show up
    for training, that they will have some motivation. And so that
    is why our people are sought after.
        Let me also address your earlier question. One of our eight
    principles at the Fresno Bridge Academy is what we call our ABC
    approach, and the ABC approach is get a job, then get a better
    job, and then get a career. We are talking about people often
    who don't have high school degrees, so they are not going to
    get 4 year degrees before they get employed. We want to get
    them into a job at a job that has upward mobility, and then
    continue to upgrade their skills so they get a better job, and
    all of this aimed towards a career. So we start from the family
    up. We start with what are their interests and aptitudes, and
    so on, so that this is going to stick and they are going to
    want to continue to advance their skills.
        Mr. Crawford. Excellent. Mr. Anderson, did you want to
    comment on that?
        Mr. Anderson. Yes. In Georgia, we have never focused on a 4
    year degree. We understand a lot of these folks, and as Mr.
    Weber said, they don't have high school diplomas. So we
    developed a contract with our North Georgia Goodwill
    Association, and they have helped with ten career pathways that
    help people get certificates, and some of those include
    advanced manufacturing operations, production technicians,
    electronic assembly and soldering, floor installation,
    custodial, forklift training, general construction, and highway
    safety, those types of jobs that people don't have to have
    degrees for. So we haven't ever focused on 4 year degrees
    because we believe there are jobs out there, if they are the
    right kind of job, that can get them self-sufficient quickly.
        Mr. Crawford. Excellent.
        Mr. Anderson. Yes.
        Mr. Crawford. I appreciate it. And, Mr. Stillman, I will
    give you the last 20 seconds.
        Mr. Stillman. Thank you. Well, I would like to point out
    that we sometimes think of things as being sequential: get a
    job, I don't need any more help. And so in relation to your
    question about soft skills, one of the things that we try to
    focus on is problem resolution, even after employment, so that
    we can offer that sort of coaching, that, ``Hey, you didn't
    show up to work today;'' ``Hey, you are not getting along with
    a coworker today; how can we help you,'' how can we help you
    keep that job. It isn't just getting a job, it is keeping that
    job, and then building on that success in order to achieve that
    long-term career goal. So you are exactly right to wonder about
    the need for it, and it is important that we then support the
    resources we need to make that happen.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I appreciate it. I yield back.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. Mr. Costa, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much. Again, I want to thank the
    Subcommittee because we are really talking about setting the
    groundwork here for the next farm bill, and how we try,
    hopefully, to come together in a bipartisan effort as we look
    at reauthorization of the SNAP Program and the WIC Program, and
    this testimony is important to setting that stage.
        When we first looked at reforming welfare in the mid-1990s,
    I remember very clearly in California that we were struck on
    the issue of employment and training, and how many of the folks
    that we were trying to help didn't have the necessary
    educational standards. They didn't have the high school
    diploma. And so we had to spend the time providing that
    education so that they could then step into the training, so
    that they could then have the opportunity for meaningful job
    placement.
        To Mr. Weber and Ms. McCoy Wade, I know that the complete
    evaluation of the employment and training program will not be
    finalized before the next farm bill, but we will have some
    preliminary data that we can refer to and look to expand the
    program. But given that you are already producing these very
    good, positive, significant outcomes, shouldn't we be investing
    now in programs that have been shown to generate such positive
    social and fiscal benefits?
        Mr. Weber. Well, Congressman Costa, the answer in short is
    yes. Most of us have read Moneyball in Government, and we want
    the rigorous kind of analysis that is being made available
    through the E&T pilots, but those results are not going to be
    reported in full until 2021.
        Mr. Costa. Well, and that is part of the challenge because
    we are going to be putting together, we hope, in the next year,
    18 months, the farm bill, and a lot of predeterminations are
    going to be made.
        Mr. Weber. So we know that there are lots, lots of people
    out there who want the kind of assistance that we can provide,
    and so anything that can be done to provide added funding, we
    are not constrained by people's interest in this program we are
    constrained by funding.
        Mr. Costa. All right.
        Yes. Ms. McCoy Wade, because a couple of other questions I
    want to ask before my time expires. No, go ahead.
        Ms. McCoy Wade. I was just going to add that we do----
        Mr. Costa. Did you want to comment on this?
        Ms. McCoy Wade. We do know something about what works in
    job training, both from the Bridge's Academy work before the
    pilot, but also from our TANF Programs and from the Recovery
    Act funding of subsidized employment, in particular, giving
    employers extra incentive to take a chance on some of these
    employees with limited history, more barriers, maybe some soft
    skills challenges. There are things we do know and can invest
    in before.
        Mr. Costa. In your department, looking at the Fresno Bridge
    Academy and doing evaluation, obviously, it is a very
    extraordinary program that improves lives and gives an
    opportunity to become independent. Based on your calculations
    that the $5.50 is being returned to the taxpayers for every
    taxpayer dollar invested, how much of that savings do you think
    in the outlays for SNAP benefits takes place?
        Mr. Weber. The direct benefits out of the $5.50 to the SNAP
    Program is $1.51: $1.83 is attributable to the fact that people
    are now paying income taxes, whereas before they were not. And
    the rest of it is a combination of a number of different
    factors, including, for example, the benefit of having a GED
    and what that means in terms of lifetime earnings and taxes
    paid, and so on.
        Mr. Costa. We obviously think that you are doing a terrific
    job, but when we look at, clearly, in Washington State, you
    have done some very groundbreaking work, I believe, but how
    much of this is, in terms of the firsthand evidence on the
    program and improving lives of some of the poorer families in
    our communities, is this program being able to be replicated?
        Mr. Weber. Well, we started, as you know, Congressman, in
    two locations in Fresno. We are now in nine locations within
    Fresno County, one in San Joaquin County, two coming up, one in
    Napa County, and one in Madera County. So it is very
    replicable. It is very scalable. We just started the E&T pilot
    in January of this year. We have already enrolled 1,563
    participants in the E&T pilot this year.
        Mr. Costa. Mr. Stillman and Mr. Anderson, there is a little
    bit of time left, but what advice would you give the Members of
    this Subcommittee and the full Committee as we look towards
    reauthorization next year in the farm bill as it relates to the
    SNAP Program and the WIC Program?
        Mr. Stillman. Well, I would keep it simple. Let's not break
    what is working.
        Mr. Costa. Yes.
        Mr. Stillman. Let's focus our attention on some additional
    outcome-type orientation. I know there were questions asked
    earlier about things like a work participation rate. As the
    TANF side of the house, it makes me cringe to think about the
    output measures that are associated with that, but I do
    understand the need for public accountability. So let's
    identify some outcome measures that we can all agree to.
    Further integration with the workforce system, particularly
    where we can rely on intermediaries, whether it is the Fresno
    Bridge Academy, Seattle Jobs Initiative, where we can use
    intermediaries that are at the community level to emphasize how
    we deliver those services. If you can help build an
    infrastructure that influences us, motivates us, pushes us in
    that direction, and still leaves us some room for local
    creativity, that is what I would urge you all to consider as
    you move forward.
        The Chairwoman. Mr. Anderson, can you answer that in 10
    seconds?
        Mr. Anderson. I agree with Mr. Stillman.
        The Chairwoman. Perfect. There you go.
        Mr. Costa. My time has expired. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Yoho,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate
    everybody being here. This is such an important topic, as we
    know, as we go into the next farm bill. And we need to take
    what is working well, refine it, and make it work better.
        Mr. Weber, the Fresno Bridge Academy said it is an 18 month
    program, it is self-enrollment. How do people sort themselves
    out? Is it by want?
        Mr. Weber. I am sorry, I didn't get the last part of your
    question.
        Mr. Yoho. How do they determine to go into that? Are they
    encouraged to go into that----
        Mr. Weber. Yes. We basically recruit them and we sell the
    program to them. In the end, they have to decide that they want
    to make this difficult transition. It is very clear to us that
    we don't have to do the difficult work of navigating the hard
    pathway from where they are to where they can be.
        Mr. Yoho. So these are the more motivated people that want
    to improve their lives.
        Mr. Weber. There is a self-selection process that is
    involved in this thing, yes.
        Mr. Yoho. Are you finding a certain age group demographic?
    Is it younger families, is it a family, per se, a nuclear
    family? And I don't want to define a nuclear family for
    anybody, but it is a family structure that works for them, or
    is it a single individual, male or female?
        Mr. Weber. I would suggest to you that it is all over the
    place.
        Mr. Yoho. Okay.
        Mr. Weber. It is all over the place. The average age of our
    participant is 35 years, but it ranges all the way from very
    young----
        Mr. Yoho. As you are screening people to go into the
    program, or that decide to go into that program, what traits
    are you finding people are looking for? Do they have certain
    people skills or technical skills, or is it just a strong
    desire or want to change their life?
        Mr. Weber. I think it is motivation. It is a strong desire
    to change their life. Now, I should tell you that a lot of the
    people that we talk to are people who are deeply depressed,
    they don't like the conditions of their lives. And so it is not
    like they are chomping at the bit to do something, they are
    desperate. This is the last line of assistance that they have
    and they are desperate to try to change their lives. Primarily,
    that is true where they have children. And it is mostly----
        Mr. Yoho. I can remember those days because I was in that
    lot, and I didn't want to stay there.
        Mr. Weber. Yes.
        Mr. Yoho. You have 30 percent of the people that come out
    of that, 30 percent become self-sufficient in an 18 month
    period of time.
        Mr. Weber. That is correct.
        Mr. Yoho. That seems incredibly successful.
        Mr. Weber. It is.
        Mr. Yoho. And then you have expanded to how many different
    locations, nine, did you say?
        Mr. Weber. We have nine sites in Fresno County. We are
    opening up three sites in other counties: one we have already
    opened, two are opening in October.
        Mr. Yoho. And when you say it costs you $1,800 per
    graduate, that is the cost in your program. Where does that
    funding come from?
        Mr. Weber. That is SNAP E&T funding 100 percent funding, as
    well as some 50/50 funding.
        Mr. Yoho. SNAP E&T.
        Okay, and then, let's see, blow this up here. You were
    talking about, Mr. Weber, I wanted to ask you another question
    here. In your testimony, you mentioned the Bridge Academy
    offers a wage subsidy for the employers. Can you go into more
    detail about how and why Academy is doing this, and I guess the
    big thing is, is providing subsidies sustainable long-term?
        Mr. Weber. Yes. Good question. So let me first point out
    that the results that I have reported today are for the
    traditional Bridge Academy services that did not include wage
    subsidies. Under the E&T pilot, we have requested authorization
    to offer wage subsidies. We have requested that because,
    particularly with some of the hardest to hire people, we have
    to compete with TANF people who do offer subsidies. And so that
    was an issue for us. Having said that, the wage subsidies that
    we are offering are much lower than those of TANF because,
    quite frankly, we are highly motivated by the notion of doing a
    program that is very cost-effective, and that produces good
    returns for taxpayers, and so we are driven by cost-
    effectiveness.
        Mr. Yoho. Right. Boy, and it sounds like you are doing a
    good job on that. And at 18 months, I assume those subsidies
    are gone or they are starting to wean off.
        Mr. Weber. The subsidies are gone with 6 months.
        Mr. Yoho. Okay. And I think that is a good investment.
        Mr. Anderson, out of the 6,100 people that applied for your
    program, and it went down to 2,100, what accounted for only the
    30 percent, roughly, participation? Again, is it the motivation
    of the individual?
        Mr. Anderson. It is the motivation of the individual. We do
    try multiple times to get the individual to come in for an
    orientation and talk with them. Three letters, several phone
    calls to try to get them in. And those that just don't respond
    are the numbers that we reflected.
        Mr. Yoho. And then so many times you get in a meeting like
    this or you hear in the news that one group wants to take
    benefits from somebody else. We don't want to do that, we want
    to empower the people to let them know they are needed. We need
    people. Everybody working, we want to empower their lives so
    that they have the quality life that they can achieve in this
    country. As you guys have already given us a lot of information
    as we talk to people, that is really where we want to go and
    empower people to get in, move up, and get out.
        And so I appreciate you all being here. Thank you for your
    time.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. Mr. Ashford, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Ashford. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
        I agree, and thank you for being here. This is incredibly
    important. I spent a number of years as an executive director
    of the Housing Authority in Omaha. We faced these issues every
    day, and I applaud all of you for what you are doing.
        We discussed, in this Committee, on various occasions the
    idea that how far we take people to a certain point, the cliff
    occurs, and they are afraid to jump off because of fear of
    losing security, food or housing, or child care, whatever it
    is. And that seems to be the challenge we all face on the
    Federal level is what can we do to mould Federal law.
        I have spent some time in Washington State and in my years
    in the Nebraska Legislature, I worked quite a bit on juvenile
    justice reform, and have been incredibly impressed by the
    holistic approach that Washington State takes to evidence-based
    remedies for some of these juvenile justice issues. I apologize
    if this has been asked or answered, but I guess I would like to
    know, again, can we just go down the line, starting with Mr.
    Stillman. If you were to say to me what changes in Federal law
    and the farm bill should we make to make this more commonplace,
    this attitude of breaking down the silos, make it more
    commonplace and incent states, because certainly our State of
    Nebraska, we should be accessing the Federal funds that are
    available to get into to make these programmatic changes. We
    are not doing that. So in some sense, Nebraska needs to take
    the initiative. But what changes in Federal law would you, or
    could you see the Federal Government doing to ease this
    process?
        Mr. Stillman. One thing I would say immediately, and that
    should be structurally obvious from the answers that we have
    given up until now, has to do with the challenge that we face
    when we are working within our silos. We are having to, as the
    Bridge Academy does, reach out and talk to people after they
    have been to one place and another place and another place. And
    although the term data sharing is overused these days, what we
    need to focus on are the barriers to a common intake process
    where our clients, our customers, are not expected to go from
    place to place to place to place in order to participate in
    these programs. That onus is on us, but I would say it is also
    on you to identify those places where, because of the funding
    strains, because of the private information restrictions that
    are built into Federal law, we are really hampered by the
    opportunity to seize the moment when the clients are in front
    of us. So that would be one thing that I urge you to think
    about carefully, and would be happy to talk about more in-depth
    at some other time.
        Mr. Ashford. Thanks, Mr. Stillman. Mr. Anderson?
        Mr. Anderson. Yes, Congressman, thank you. One of the most
    important things for us is that we don't make changes to
    Federal law that will ultimately hamper the states' effort to
    do this. Georgia, specifically, is working with the Seattle
    Jobs Initiative Group, I don't know if you are familiar with
    them, to try to find ways to get non-state and non-Federal
    dollars to support the 50/50 match on moving the employment and
    training program forward, to try to put more people into jobs
    and long-term self-sufficiency. So we are already moving in
    that direction in Georgia to try to look at that. But, the
    biggest thing, and I want to bring up what Mr. Stillman had
    said before, it is extremely important to try not to mirror the
    work participation rate that is in the TANF Program and the E&T
    Program because if you look at what is going on, even though it
    is a great goal and it is a great objective, there are a lot of
    states that have trouble meeting those goals because each
    individual is different, each individual's needs are different.
    They have different barriers that may have to be addressed, and
    those are kind of hard to get to in a statewide number.
        Mr. Ashford. Thank you. Mr. Weber?
        Mr. Weber. Congressman, as you know better than I, there is
    no absence of antipoverty programs in the Federal Government.
    The problem is that most of those programs are very siloed.
    They are very fragmented. And so anything that can be done that
    encourages innovation, that is driven from the family up, that
    is to say where public-private partnerships can collaborate on
    outcomes-oriented approaches such as have been described today,
    would be a tremendously beneficial thing to do.
        Mr. Ashford. Thank you. Ms. McCoy Wade.
        Ms. McCoy Wade. And I would echo what has been said about
    alignment between programs, and the right kind of outcomes and
    the right kind of public-private partnerships, but just really
    add that subsidized employment is a missing piece here because
    we want people to be in real jobs with real work experience.
        Mr. Ashford. Right. Thank you. This is very helpful. Thank
    you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Gibbs,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for
    being here today, supporting good people finding meaningful
    work, and supporting their families, and self-respect, and all
    that.
        Recently, in my district I held a roundtable discussion on
    possible SNAP reforms, and we had all different types of
    entities in there, and one thing that came out that was people
    that work with SNAP recipients, they talked about the trouble
    that a lot of their constituents have with literacy programs,
    budgeting benefits, and handling their finances in general.
    Does any of your state E&T Programs include financial literacy
    training? If so, what kind of results have you seen? So that is
    open to anybody who wants to answer. Mr. Weber, I see you
    getting ready.
        Mr. Weber. Yes, absolutely. It is critically important. A
    lot of the people that we deal with don't even have bank
    accounts. So we have partnerships, for example, a partnership
    with Wells Fargo in Fresno County where they provide financial
    literacy. And, of course, it is in their best interests because
    then they are encouraging people to set up bank accounts with
    them. Maybe shouldn't have mentioned that in light of the
    recent history with Wells Fargo, but nevertheless, there it is.
        Mr. Gibbs. Anybody else want to comment, Mr. Stillman?
        Mr. Stillman. I would just echo what was said before. It
    really is life skills, whether they are about literacy or
    financial literacy, are really critical to that. It is about
    building the foundational skills that you need to move ahead,
    to plan, and to have enough bandwidth to withstand some crisis
    down the road. And so talking about building that is really
    important.
        Mr. Gibbs. Okay. Mr. Stillman, there are a lot more
    organizations which seem to work in this area. As to
    duplication, with all the different organizations that you deal
    with, how do you coordinate the co-enrollment with various
    programs so you don't have duplicating services? And we have
    heard a little bit about the silo issue, how do you coordinate
    so that we get the most bang for our buck and the most
    efficiencies?
        Mr. Stillman. Well, we are very fortunate in Washington to
    have a fairly robust information technology backbone, and don't
    ask me what it stands for, eJAS, and it is an IT backbone that
    allows multiple participants in the process, meaning our Labor
    Department, our State Board for Community and Technical
    Colleges, our own staff, to essentially communicate across the
    system. So first we start with a comprehensive evaluation to
    understand what our clients need. We do that evaluation on a
    routine basis to try to update what is needed for that family
    or individual, and then have this backbone system to be able to
    properly communicate. And that is really critical among all
    these silos that we do more than just an every-now-and-then
    interaction.
        Mr. Gibbs. So we want to make sure that we have programs in
    place, the incentives there, so that we don't have the
    duplication when we look at the next farm bill, I guess.
        Mr. Stillman. Yes. And if we are all using the same
    measures and the same system to communicate with, we can drive
    out some of that duplication.
        Mr. Gibbs. Also, Mr. Stillman, in your testimony,
    employment rates have increased to 61 percent over the last 2
    years. What accounts for the 40 percent of the participants
    that didn't gain employment? What is keeping them from getting
    a job?
        Mr. Stillman. Well, the many tens of thousands of people
    who participate are all throughout the state. And so our
    communities are not all the same. There were questions earlier
    and testimony referencing areas of high unemployment, so
    Washington is blessed to have mountains and oceans and really
    good stuff, but we also have big urban settings and then many
    more rural settings where we have high unemployment rates. So
    some of that lack of job attachment is really due to the fact
    that there aren't as many opportunities out there for
    individuals to----
        Mr. Gibbs. That leads me to my next question. My next
    question was, in rural counties there might not be the job
    opportunities, and you just stated that. How does it look when
    we are looking at availability of opportunities to help these
    recipients in job training programs? Do you kind of look in
    their area, in their locale, what is available and try to
    tailor those job training programs to what is available?
    Because it would be different in Washington State, I know there
    is a big difference between the eastern part of the state and
    the western part of the state, so do you kind of look at that,
    at what is available, and tailor those job training programs to
    that locale?
        Mr. Stillman. We do. And, in fact, that is one of the
    reasons that the utilization of the community-based
    organizations and the community colleges is so critical,
    because each of those colleges in Washington are centers of
    excellence around particular industries or particular sectors.
    Focusing on the need of that particular area, whether it is
    water issues, salmon restoration, aircraft and other
    manufacturing, we have these different centers where we are
    really trying to build the capacity not only of the
    individuals, but build the capacity of the community to support
    the employers that have made a decision to invest in that local
    community.
        Mr. Gibbs. Good. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. The chair recognizes Ms. Lujan
    Grisham, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to
    thank the panel. I hope it is clear that this Committee, in a
    bipartisan effort, really wants to make these benefits work in
    a way that assists people to move out of poverty. I am in the
    unfortunate situation at every one of these hearings to, if you
    don't already know, remind the panel that New Mexico finds
    itself in a really difficult situation where we have some of
    the highest poverty rates, highest food insecurity rates,
    highest unemployment rates now in the country. And given that
    oil and gas continues to be unstable and low, which is, in
    addition to ag, one of our large economic sectors, it has been
    really challenging.
        I used to work in state government, and one of the most
    successful programs that we ran at the time was an employment
    program for older folks. So it is the Older Workers' Program,
    we sort of reinvented it, much in the way, Mr. Stillman, that
    you describe your partnerships and the successes in Washington.
    The key is that we were very careful about mandates versus
    voluntary aspects, recruitment and training of participation,
    and a real productive relationship with the economic sector and
    the business sector. Now, that has fallen apart in the state,
    but I am interested really, do you have advice, twofold, first,
    for states that find themselves in the situation that New
    Mexico is in, and second, add to that overarching challenge
    that it is clear and public knowledge that New Mexico has been
    mismanaging its SNAP Program for decades, that is has taken
    decades to get a Federal investigation, that a district court
    has now required an independent advisor, and the states' real
    effort here with the threats of losing the administrative match
    for SNAP is still to go after beneficiaries. And there is no
    doubt in my mind that there are some issues with beneficiaries
    and fraud, small, but they pale in comparison to mandatory work
    requirements, no investment in education, employment training,
    no incentives, no policies in the farm bill that really put
    states both in a proactive and an accountable mechanism to move
    people off poverty. What advice do you have for me and my
    state?
        Mr. Stillman. That is a tall order. Let me start with that.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. That is why they have a tall
    Congresswoman.
        Mr. Stillman. I want to go back to the client. I think that
    is where we all need to begin. We need to go back to the
    family, go back to the individual and understand where they are
    coming from, and ask ourselves whether the service delivery
    that we have today is meeting them where they are at, as
    opposed to trying to, I don't know, put that proverbial square
    peg in a round hole. So that would be the place where I would
    begin.
        I also referenced earlier how important it is in Washington
    that we do integrated service delivery, meaning that we are,
    again, looking at the entire client. As they present themselves
    to us, we are not trying to look at this piece of data or that
    piece of data, we are really trying to dig a little bit deeper.
    Yes, we need your demographic information, but we need to
    understand the circumstances of your children, whether there
    are mental health or developmental issues that are brought to
    bear, and the design an intervention that is about that need,
    about that need at that time, and then follow through.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. I actually completely agree with you.
    How would you envision that getting into policymaking that
    creates the right balance so that, for example, if you have
    mandatory participation in these programs, sounds great, right?
    If you say you will lose a benefit, that is an accountability
    measure, if you don't come to an appointment, but I have two
    developmentally disabled children, twins, with an under-funded
    special education component, a 10 year wait on the DD waiver,
    and they are sick, and I can't get to that appointment because
    I am constrained, and my choices are leaving those
    developmentally disabled children alone at home sick, or
    meeting that missed appointment requirement, and the fact that
    most states do not have integrated systems for universal
    applications, triggers to make sure that if you are eligible,
    even though we have said that in Federal law, if you are
    eligible for this Medicaid benefit, then you are eligible for
    these other benefits. And yet we are fighting. And there are
    many court actions around the country saying, is your state
    really doing that. What is the right incentive to make sure
    that states are moving in the direction that Washington is? I
    mean what can this Committee do to assure that that becomes the
    standard bearer in the farm bill?
        Mr. Stillman. Well, you mentioned earlier that you are not
    a fan of coercive actions against clients. At least I
    interpreted your opening statement in that regard. And trying
    to coerce states to do things is equally as challenging. It is
    an organic system. We are people too. So forcing us to do
    something is not the right answer. Incenting us to do things,
    for example, that family that you referenced, they probably
    have a medical home. Those kinds may have the opportunity to go
    to an education location or a child care, a respite location.
    And if there are places where that family is going already,
    then let's look at that opportunity to bring in and bridge
    service deliver there, and not expect Mom to do ten things when
    she can hardly do one thing to help make sure those kids are
    safe. That is how I would go about trying to address that
    problem in your state.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. And I am out of time and I really
    appreciate that. And I know that the Chairwoman has really
    worked on cliff issues, but you have just described that you
    would have to choose between those benefits in most states.
    Thank you.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr.
    Thompson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Thompson. Madam Chair, thank you so much for hosting
    this hearing. Thanks to each member of the panel for bringing
    your expertise here.
        I wanted to follow back around on the employment and
    training components of SNAP. We have so many families, so many
    people who are living in poverty and find themselves in need of
    support. And, quite frankly, I see employment and training as
    an exit ramp, an exit ramp out of poverty. Many of our poverty
    programs have almost been like anesthesia; it is meant to make
    you feel more comfortable living in poverty versus providing an
    off ramp.
        And so I am pretty pleased that later today, this
    afternoon, we will have on the floor a bill that I have been
    working on for a number of years, it is H.R. 5587,
    Strengthening Career and Technical Education Training for the
    21st Century Act. I wanted to share with you just a couple of
    the bullets of that and get your assessment, what you think
    about whether this is an improvement, it is a reauthorization,
    but it is really a modernization of the Perkins Act. I think it
    is a transformation of it. Whether, in your assessment, whether
    this will help the types of people who you are working with
    each and every day, in terms of employment and training related
    to SNAP. This change provides a workforce alignment. It
    actually brings business and industry to the table so that when
    we provide training, at the end of the day it is not just
    completing education, it is a family-sustaining job that is
    there. It is really focused on high-wage, high-demand positions
    that we know are out there in every community, but there is a
    skills gap between folks who need a job or a better job, and
    those employers that need that number one asset that they have,
    which is a qualified and trained worker.
        There is easier access to the dollars for states and for
    the districts, for the providers of this training. Quite
    frankly, it reduces the application bureaucracy and
    requirements to facilitate that. I will be honest with you,
    there is less Washington and there is more state and local
    level, closer to the people who have the need, in terms of
    authority and decision-making. And it does push career
    awareness down into the early middle schools, which I know we
    have a lot of kids that are being served, but this is an
    investment for the future, I guess.
        I appreciate, in the time I have left, hearing from you of,
    does this sound like we are on the right course for this vote
    this afternoon?
        Mr. Stillman. So I have to say that I am not as familiar
    with the specifics of the bill, but the principles that you
    have laid out seem very sound to me. I think that any time I
    can help you solve a problem, that helps me solve my problem,
    it is that classic win-win. And so with employers and industry
    at the table, articulating their needs in a way that we can
    advance the interest of our clients to fulfill those needs,
    clearly, that is a win-win.
        I will say that high-wage and high-demand jobs are
    relatively few in number in contrast to the very large number
    of individuals that participate in SNAP, even in our TANF
    Program. So sometimes that seems like the nirvana of where we
    want our families to go, and we have to remember that we have a
    large number of families in our communities that need some very
    basic attention before they get to the top.
        Mr. Thompson. Right.
        And the hope is this restores all the wrongs on the ladder
    of opportunity, that we all start at the bottom and climb our
    way up.
        Mr. Stillman. I couldn't agree with you more.
        Mr. Weber. Congressman, from what I have heard, and again,
    I am not familiar with the bill, but I would strongly support
    the principles. We all have to understand that addressing
    poverty starts with the families, and it starts with connecting
    them to employment opportunities that are available in their
    local community. This is something that we don't know sitting
    in Washington. We know it locally. And then there is a question
    of connecting those two pieces. What is the training that we
    need to provide to these people, both in hard kills and soft
    skills, to get them from here to there. And so what you are
    describing, would be very helpful in that direction.
        Mr. Thompson. Mr. Anderson?
        Mr. Anderson. I agree with both of my fellow panelists on
    this one, but as a principle, the more you allow states to
    provide input and what works for their state is certainly
    welcome news for our state.
        Mr. Thompson. All right. Thank you everybody. Thank you,
    Madam Chair.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. The chair recognizes Congressman
    Moolenaar, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank
    all of you for being here and your testimony. And I came in at
    the tail end. I had another committee meeting. But I know that
    you had spoken about some of the work you do partnering with
    different community organizations, community colleges, the
    private-sector, and I just wondered if you could be more
    specific in terms of how those partnerships work. Is it
    something where you provide the funding, they provide a
    service, is there a shared responsibility, and how do you reach
    out to the different organizations? I would welcome any of your
    input.
        Mr. Weber. Sure.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Mr. Weber.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Congressman. We started the Fresno
    Bridge Academy in 2010 with 14 service providers, all of which
    had their own sources of funding to provide some of the
    services the families needed. Today, we are at 175 service
    providers. With one exception, they all have their own sources
    of funding.
        What has happened in the war on poverty in the last 52
    years is we have all of these siloed programs. They come down
    on silos from Federal Government. They tend to remain in silos
    coming down from the state government, and frankly, even at the
    local agency level, at the local government, they tend to be
    compliance-oriented.
        What needs to happen is you need to start from the family
    up, figuring out what it is that is needed and then making the
    connections to these families.
        So the single most important role that we play in the
    Fresno Bridge Academy is we have what we call a career and
    family navigator that is assigned to a family from the day that
    they enroll in the program until they graduate from the program
    18 months later. The role is to help them develop an
    individualized family plan, connect them to service providers,
    and then support them as they get on the on ramps to the
    pathway that they have to traverse, and very, very importantly,
    help bolster their confidence as they traverse the pathway,
    because for a lot of them poverty is hard. They have been beat
    down pretty hard. And so, it is amazing to see their self-
    confidence grow as they get their GEDs, and as they complete
    their vocational training, as they get into their first job,
    and so on. So that is the way we do it. The one exception is we
    have a contract with our economic development corporation to
    help us place our graduates with companies that have 50 or more
    employees, because they have the relationships with those
    companies.
        Mr. Stillman. And----
        Ms. McCoy Wade. Let me just briefly telescope out. So the
    hub of the program is with the SNAP Program, and in our case in
    California, the county and some cases with the state, and in
    those counties to respond to the needs of the employer market
    and the employee population, you often engage a range of
    contracts with your community college, with your Office of
    Adult Ed., with Goodwill industries, with a prisoner re-entry
    program that is targeted, and all of those folks are bringing
    matched dollars to the table to match with the SNAP E&T. But
    you have a diverse portfolio of services to serve, again, match
    your employees with your employers. So that is how we
    absolutely rely on the public-private partnership to be locally
    tailored.
        Mr. Stillman. And in our state, one of the things that I
    think we have done a little bit differently is through our
    employment pipeline, identified medium and large employers that
    have high turnover and moderate and high jobs. So I won't name
    names, I didn't ask them ahead of time about that, but
    essentially, look at turnover, and look at that cost center
    that employers are experiencing. It is expensive to hire,
    train, hire, train, hire, train. So how might we help screen,
    how might we help train in a way that we use Federal and state
    resources, local community resources, to help that employer
    with their sustained need for employment, and then deliver job-
    ready employees, and then stay with them as their employment
    continues so that they can not only get that first job, but get
    a better job.
        And we have to look at some unique industries. People might
    not think of call centers as an industry, but there really is
    an industry sector there that goes all the way up to the
    Federal Government, having some pretty decent jobs in call
    center-like settings where, if we can help a person start out
    at a low level and work their way through that, developing good
    customer service skills, good problem-solving skills, they will
    have a career that is meaningful.
        Ms. McCoy Wade. And one example to add is a major hospital,
    which also has a nice administrative ladder, a lot of clerical
    entry, but then a real career ladder there for folks, and a lot
    of slots.
        Mr. Anderson. And in Georgia, part of what we have done
    with this grant is look at job forecasting and job marketing
    across the state to see what jobs are coming up and available,
    and we are actually doing assessments of the individual to see
    if they might fit that criteria for any of those jobs, and
    actually going through and asking them the questions and doing
    a systemic way of finding out what job will be best for them.
    So that is part of what we are looking forward to in the
    outcomes of our grant.
        Mr. Mooelnaar. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
    Chair.
        The Chairwoman. Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses
    for being here today. I think that this was an amazing amount
    of information that continues to point us in the direction of
    moving forward and continuing to always look for ways, even
    outside of the box, to continue to shape and mould these models
    that we are looking at. I have learned so much listening to you
    all today, and I really appreciate it. And I think that it also
    gives us, for the first time, good evidence-based research
    coming right out of your areas, the states that you represent,
    which is going to be incredible for the days ahead. So I just
    want to thank you for your remarks. Thank you so much for
    indulging us today.
        Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
    hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
    additional material and supplementary written responses from
    the witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
        This hearing of the Subcommittee on Nutrition is adjourned.
    Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

      (THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING
                                ACCESS TO FOOD)

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Agriculture,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
    1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael
    Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Conaway, Neugebauer,
    Lucas, Thompson, Gibbs, Crawford, Gibson, Benishek, Walorski,
    Allen, Bost, Abraham, Moolenaar, Kelly, Peterson, David Scott
    of Georgia, Costa, Walz, McGovern, DelBene, Vela, Lujan
    Grisham, Kuster, Nolan, Bustos, Aguilar, Plaskett, Adams,
    Graham, and Ashford.
        Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Callie McAdams, Haley
    Graves, Jadi Chapman, Matt Schertz, Paul Balzano, Scott C.
    Graves, Stephanie Addison, John Konya, Lisa Shelton, Liz
    Friedlander, Matthew MacKenzie, Nicole Scott, and Carly
    Reedholm.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
                         IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

        The Chairman. Again, Rob, thank you for those long years of
    service to our Committee, to Congress, and to the people. We
    appreciate it.
        So with that, this hearing on the Committee on Agriculture,
    entitled, Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: Opportunities for
    Improving Access to Food, will come to order.
        Mr. Neugebauer, will you open us with a prayer?
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
        Father, we just come before you today, and to praise you
    and thank you for the gracious and loving God that you are.
    Father, we thank you for the opportunity that you give us to
    live in this United States of America. Father, there are so
    many challenges, both here in our country and around the world,
    and I pray for wisdom for all of those that are in authority,
    that you have put in authority, that they would have the wisdom
    and the courage and the strength to make the decisions that
    make this world and make this country better. We thank you for
    the families represented here today, and we ask that you
    continue to bless our great nation. In your son's precious name
    we pray. Amen.
        The Chairman. All right, thank you.
        Over the course of the 114th Congress, we have heard from
    55 witnesses at 15 different hearings in our series on the
    Past, Present, and Future of SNAP. We have heard from witnesses
    discussing their experiences as SNAP recipients, from state
    agencies implementing SNAP across the country, from charitable
    partners that work with SNAP recipients, from innovative
    organizations receiving SNAP funding to help improve and target
    SNAP programs, from retailers who sell food and provide access
    to healthy foods in their local communities, and from a wide
    range of partners, implementers, government agencies, and
    stakeholders.
        These witnesses have expressed an array of opinions on the
    successes and failures of SNAP at serving people in need of
    nutritious, wholesome food. They have shared great
    accomplishments, but have also pointed out that there is room
    for improvement. The findings of our 2 year review are being
    compiled into a comprehensive report that we plan to release
    next month.
        As we begin the 16th and final hearing of our series, the
    individuals we have with us today represent organizations at
    the forefront of improving access to healthy food. At this
    point, we have all heard about food deserts and concerns about
    whether those receiving SNAP benefits can actually make healthy
    purchases with the benefits they receive. The organizations
    represented here today are working to address those concerns in
    unique and innovative ways. It is my hope that some of the
    ideas discussed in this hearing can be applied more broadly
    throughout the SNAP programs to enhance program delivery.
        As we have discussed time and again, SNAP is not a one-
    size-fits-all program. Different communities have different
    needs, and there are different gaps in SNAP delivery. So I am
    looking forward to hearing how the steps that today's witnesses
    have taken target the unique needs of the communities they each
    serve.
        As the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am
    especially cognizant of the challenges that many who live in
    rural America face in accessing healthy food. Online purchases,
    whether or not they are made through SNAP, can increase access
    to fresh foods for customers in rural and urban communities
    alike who are not near, or able to travel to, a fresh-food
    retailer. Companies like Amazon are well known for their online
    presence, and our other witnesses, while perhaps less well
    known, are in some cases already delivering groceries to
    customers through online purchases.
        While these online platforms certainly increase access to
    food, online sales also raise implementation questions related
    to shipping, product freshness, product availability, and cost.
    It is my hope that some of these questions can be answered, or
    at least explored, in this hearing.
        As a taxpayer and a steward of taxpayer dollars, I want the
    dollars that go toward SNAP to be well spent. SNAP dollars that
    are used inefficiently are SNAP dollars that are not feeding
    people, or helping them learn about healthy eating, or helping
    them find work and are lifting them off the programs that they
    are on. SNAP dollars should provide the greatest benefit
    possible and allow for the maximum improvement in nutrition for
    the households that need them. Hopefully, innovations in how
    customers make their food purchases will prove to be one such
    way that these efficiencies can be gained.
        Before I conclude, I would like to recognize my good friend
    and colleague and neighbor, Randy Neugebauer. Randy was first
    elected in 2013, a special election, an election I am not
    unfamiliar with. Over the past 13+ years, Randy has served on
    this Committee, as well as Financial Services and, I guess,
    Science, Space, and Technology. He has been a good friend, a
    good neighbor, he has served well, and he is leaving us at the
    end of this Congress to pursue other issues. Let this be a full
    warning to the rainbow trout populations across all of North
    America that Randy will have more fly fishing time available as
    a result of his turning this page in his life, and I couldn't
    wish him anything but the best. And God speed, Randy, on
    whatever chapters are ahead of you, going forward. I appreciate
    your service to the constituents of District 19, and by
    extension, your work here in Congress as well. So thank you,
    buddy.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well, thank you.
        The Chairman. God speed.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, well, it has
    been a great honor. I come from an area where agriculture is
    extremely important, but agriculture is important to the entire
    nation. I have gotten to serve with a bunch of great folks in
    this room, and every Chairman I have served with is still on
    the Committee, and which says a lot about this Committee.
        I think one of the things, having served on other
    committees, is I have always appreciated the bipartisan way
    that this Committee works to make sure that Americans can
    continue to enjoy the safest, cheapest food in the world, and
    the best fiber, and so I am thankful for that. And, Mr.
    Chairman, I have certainly enjoyed serving with you, and thank
    you for asking me to be your Vice Chairman. And, it is a great
    Committee, and this is an important Committee to our country,
    and I am going to miss the friendships and the relationships
    that we have been able to make here. But the other people that
    I want to thank is those hundreds of farmers and ranchers over
    the years that have come before this Committee, gotten off
    their tractor or gotten off their horse, or left their company
    to come up here and make sure that we understand how important
    the things and the decisions that we make in this Committee
    impact those farm families across our country. So our thanks go
    out to them. And thank you for the time for allowing me to
    speak.
        The Chairman. Well, God speed.
        I would also like to recognize Dan Benishek and Christopher
    P. Gibson, who are also concluding their service in Congress.
    Those two have also served for 4 years now. And, Dan, I
    appreciate your work on our Committee. And on the other side we
    have Gwen Graham and Brad Ashford and Ann Kirkpatrick, we also
    recognize and appreciate their service. They joined us in the
    114th Congress and will be moving on. I appreciate their work,
    and as the letter to Rob said,* ``this is a bipartisan group of
    folks who work together to try to improve food and how that
    food is grown, all those things are our responsibility.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * The document referred to is retained in Committee file.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        So with that, I would like to thank our witnesses for being
    here. We will recognize them in a minute.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
                              Congress from Texas
        Over the course of the 114th Congress, we have heard from 55
    witnesses at 15 different hearings in our series on the Past, Present
    and Future of SNAP. We have heard from witnesses discussing their
    experiences as SNAP recipients, from state agencies implementing SNAP
    across the country, from charitable partners that work with SNAP
    recipients, from innovative organizations receiving SNAP funding to
    help improve and target SNAP programs, from retailers who sell food and
    provide access to healthy foods in their local communities, and from a
    wide range of other partners, implementers, government agencies, and
    stakeholders.
        These witnesses have expressed an array of opinions on the
    successes and failures of SNAP at serving people in need of nutritious,
    wholesome food. They have shared great accomplishments, but have also
    pointed out that there is room for improvement. The findings of our 2
    year review are being compiled into a comprehensive report that we plan
    to release next month.
        As we begin the 16th and final hearing of our series, the
    individuals we have with us today represent organizations at the
    forefront of improving access to healthy food. At this point, we have
    all heard about ``food deserts'' and concerns about whether those who
    receive SNAP benefits can actually make healthy purchases with the
    benefits they receive. The organizations represented here today are
    working to address those concerns in unique and innovative ways. It is
    my hope that some of the ideas discussed in this hearing can be applied
    more broadly throughout SNAP to enhance program delivery.
        As we have discussed time and again, SNAP is not a one-size-fits-
    all program. Different communities have different needs, and there are
    different gaps in SNAP delivery. So I am looking forward to hearing how
    the steps that today's witnesses have taken target the unique needs of
    the communities they each serve.
        As the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am especially
    cognizant of the challenges that many who live in rural America face in
    accessing healthy food. Online purchases, whether or not they are made
    through SNAP, can increase access to fresh foods for customers in rural
    and urban communities alike who are not near--or able to travel to--a
    fresh food retailer. Companies like Amazon are well known for their
    online presence and our other witnesses, while perhaps less well known,
    are in some cases already delivering groceries to customers through
    online purchases.
        While these online platforms certainly increase access to food,
    online sales also raise implementation questions related to shipping,
    product freshness, product availability, and cost. It is my hope that
    some of these questions can be answered, or at least explored, in this
    hearing.
        As a taxpayer myself, and as a steward of taxpayer dollars, I want
    the dollars that go toward SNAP to be well spent. SNAP dollars that are
    used inefficiently are SNAP dollars that are not feeding people, or
    helping them learn about healthy eating, or helping them find work and
    ultimately lifting them off of the program. SNAP dollars should provide
    the greatest benefit possible and allow for the maximum improvement in
    nutrition for the households that need them. Hopefully, innovations in
    how customers make their food purchases will prove to be one such way
    those efficiencies can be gained.
        Before I conclude, I would like to take a moment to thank my friend
    Randy Neugebauer for his service as the Vice Chairman of this
    Committee. Over the past 13 years, he has faithfully served this
    Committee and the people of West Texas, and I wish him nothing but the
    best as he enters this new chapter. Randy, you will be missed.
        I would also like to recognize the other Agriculture Committee
    Members leaving at the end of this Congress. Dan Benishek and
    Christopher P. Gibson have served on the Committee for the past 4
    years. Gwen Graham, Brad Ashford, and Ann Kirkpatrick all joined the
    Committee for the 114th Congress. I appreciate the time and effort that
    each of you have given to this Committee. You all have been great
    colleagues to work with, and you will be missed.
        With that, I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I
    recognize Ranking Member Peterson for any comments he would like to
    make.

        The Chairman. I will turn now to Mr. Peterson for any
    comments that he would like to make.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
                       IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to also
    give my best to Randy. I remember when you first were elected,
    and were we in Amarillo or Lubbock? Amarillo?
        Mr. Neugebauer. Amarillo.
        Mr. Peterson. Yes. We went to dinner, I think it was, the
    first time I met you way back when. So Randy has done a great
    job. And the other Members that are leaving the Committee,
    their service is appreciated because they have been part of the
    reason we have been successful and been able to work in a way
    that is constructive for the American people. We look forward
    to doing that into the future, and wish everybody well in
    whatever they are going to be doing in the next chapter of
    their lives.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to be back, and I
    welcome everybody to the Agriculture Committee today.
        We are continuing the Committee's review of SNAP by looking
    at what food providers are doing to improve access to food.
    There are a lot of different approaches to this, and I am
    looking forward to hearing testimony today from our witnesses.
        Maybe I am wrong, and my staff says this is our 18th SNAP
    review. Whatever it is. And I believe that this is the final
    hearing this year.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Peterson. So we have covered a lot of issues, but the
    overwhelming theme of the testimony has shown that while there
    are some areas for improvement, SNAP works. We have also heard
    testimony opposing efforts to block grant SNAP, and on the
    importance of keeping SNAP within the farm bill. So I hope that
    we can keep these themes in mind as we start work on the farm
    bill next year.
        And again, I welcome the witnesses and look forward to
    their testimony, and I thank the chair for holding today's
    hearing. I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        I also want to brag on Jackie Walorski and James P.
    McGovern. They have been the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of
    the Subcommittee on Nutrition. They have shepherded this work
    for 2 years. And I now turn to Mrs. Walorski for comments that
    she might have.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE WALORSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                         CONGRESS FROM INDIANA

        Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you point out, I
    guess we are debating, I think it is the 16th hearing in the
    series examining the Past, Present, and Future of SNAP, but who
    is counting, right, James? I want to thank you for your
    leadership and commitment to giving this program such a
    comprehensive review. I also want to thank my Ranking Member on
    the Nutrition Subcommittee, Mr. James P. McGovern. I have
    learned, James, so much, and I so much appreciate your
    friendship during this time.
        When I took the gavel of the Subcommittee, it was clear
    that you were a dedicated and admired leader in the fight
    against hunger, and it has been an absolute pleasure to work
    alongside of you. And I will never forget the event we did
    together in the beltway here, when James walked in, he was like
    a rock star icon, and I will never forget it. While we have our
    differences, we share the common goal of working together
    against poverty and hunger in this country. We have been able
    to accomplish a lot on a bipartisan basis in the last 2 years.
        This series of hearings has been an eye-opener for me. I
    have learned so much. I hope it has been for the other Members
    of the Committee as well. We have heard from the broadest range
    of stakeholders possible; from SNAP recipients themselves, to
    government agencies, to those who are on the frontline of the
    fight against poverty. We have found successes and innovative
    solutions, and we have identified gaps in the system and areas
    for improvement.
        As I have said before, no one program will end hunger or
    poverty. Everyone; Federal, state, and local governments, not-
    for-profits, and the private-sector, academia, and recipients
    themselves, has a role to play in this fight. SNAP is only one
    part of our country's safety net, but this Committee's job is
    to make it as effective and efficient as possible, and ensure
    that it works in tandem with other Federal, state, and private-
    sector programs.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as we
    explore opportunities to improve access to food. The future of
    SNAP is full of promising innovations in food delivery,
    purchasing, and other areas. These are innovations we cannot
    ignore, but we must balance innovation with program integrity
    to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent effectively.
        I want to thank each of the witnesses for being here and
    lending your expertise.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Any comments, Mr.
    McGovern, you might make?

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE
                     IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS

        Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to thank
    my colleague, Congresswoman Jackie Walorski. I have the
    privilege of serving with her on the Nutrition Subcommittee,
    and she is a great friend and a great leader, and I look
    forward to continuing to work with her on these issues.
        So after 18 hearings what have we learned? We have learned
    that the SNAP Program is a powerful tool for improving
    nutrition, insulating families against hardship, and lifting
    people out of poverty. It is effective, and it is efficiently
    run. The very modest benefit, which averages about $1.40 per
    person, per meal, helped to keep over ten million people out of
    poverty in 2012, including almost five million kids. So when I
    reflect on the lessons learned from our hearings on SNAP during
    the 114th Congress, I think about the overwhelming support of
    testimony that we have heard from witnesses about the structure
    of the SNAP Program, and its ability to reduce food insecurity
    among our most vulnerable constituents.
        We have learned that charities do great work, but they
    can't do it alone. We have learned that it is a bad idea to
    radically change the SNAP Program. It is working as intended.
    Not once have we heard from our witnesses that block granting
    SNAP will reduce hunger or strengthen this program. In fact, we
    have heard the opposite. And if we want to talk about improving
    access to food, we should be discussing ways to increase SNAP
    benefits. If anything, the average benefit of $1.40 per person,
    per meal, is too low.
        The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
    temporarily increased SNAP benefits, and we saw an increase in
    food expenditures by low-income households, a reduction of food
    insecurity, and improvements in diet quality, especially
    amongst children. We ought to find ways to increase access to
    food by piloting the use of SNAP benefits online, strengthening
    employment and training programs, expanding SNAP education,
    incentivizing the purchase of more nutritious foods. We ought
    to address the issue of the cliff, among many other things. All
    of that would require an increased investment, but I think the
    return on that investment would be enormous.
        Now, I have no idea what a Trump Administration, coupled
    with a Republican Congress, means for the future of SNAP or
    other safety net programs. I am worried. Quite frankly, I am
    terrified. But I spend a lot of time on this stuff. I spend a
    lot of time with people on SNAP. They don't fit a stereotype.
    Many aren't employed, and most of them work. The majority who
    benefit from SNAP are kids and senior citizens. These are good
    people. They are our neighbors. And yet too often they are
    ridiculed, and their plight is belittled in the halls of this
    Congress. That is wrong.
        So after 18 hearings, we have learned from both Majority
    and Minority witnesses that SNAP is not only a good program,
    but a very good program. It works. And if next year, the
    Republican leadership wants to block grant or cut the program,
    or put more hurdles in place to deny people a benefit to put
    food on their table, be prepared for one hell of a fight,
    because this is a fight worth having. No one, and I mean no
    one, should go hungry in the United States of America.
        I thank the Chairman. I yield back my time.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        Now, we will turn to our witnesses, finally. I thank each
    and every one of you for being here. We have Mr. Eric French,
    who is Director of Grocery at Amazon, Seattle, Washington. We
    have Mr. Gunnar Lovelace, Founder/Co-CEO, Thrive Market, Marina
    del Ray, California. We have Mr. Michael Beal, Chief Operating
    Officer for Balls Food Stores in Kansas City, Kansas. Ms.
    Pamela Hess, Executive Director of Arcadia Center for
    Sustainable Food and Agriculture in Alexandria, Virginia. And I
    would like to ask Mr. Lucas to introduce our final witness.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    introduce Melinda Newport, the Director of the WIC/Child
    Nutrition Programs for the Chickasaw Nation's Department of
    Health, this morning. She has been with the Chickasaw Nation
    since 1990, and lives in Stonewall, Oklahoma. I would note for
    the record, from the perspective of both herself and myself as
    good Okies, this is Statehood Day in Oklahoma, 109th
    anniversary of Oklahoma joining the Union. So for all of you
    who are not familiar with that, you know something extra now.
        Again, Melinda, thank you for joining us this morning, and
    we look forward to hearing about the great work going on in
    Oklahoma.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman. I was not aware
    that today is Statehood Day for Oklahoma, so good stuff there.
        Mr. Lucas. It wasn't Republic Day, but Statehood Day.
        The Chairman. I got you.
        All right, with that, Mr. French, the floor is yours for 5
    minutes.

    STATEMENT OF ERIC FRENCH, DIRECTOR OF GROCERY, AMAZON, SEATTLE,
                                   WA

        Mr. French. Thank you, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member
    Peterson, and Committee Members. My name is Eric French, and I
    am Amazon's Director of Grocery.
        Amazon's mission is to be Earth's most customer-centric
    company. That isn't just a motto; rather, it is how we approach
    every product or service we design. We start with the customer
    and work backwards. This approach has served our customers and
    Amazon well. This is also the approach we take as we envision
    the future of the SNAP Program.
        We are very excited about the prospect of bringing SNAP
    into the 21st century. The benefits of doing so are quite
    clear. SNAP recipients would have access to value, selection,
    and convenience that isn't always available in their own
    community. Not every community is home to a grocery store, let
    alone multiple stores, that carry a broader selection of foods
    and provide the opportunity to comparison shop.
        For the elderly and individuals with disabilities, even a
    nearby grocery store can be difficult to access due to mobility
    challenges. In single-parent families, and those lacking
    transportation, they still confront challenges in getting to
    the grocery store, even if there is one nearby. Access to
    online grocery shopping can mitigate all of these challenges
    and more.
        E-commerce provides value by enabling consumers to choose
    the most affordable options when making purchase decisions;
    allowing them to stretch limited budgets further. Amazon's
    customers expect to find the lowest prices across our vast
    selection, so we do the hard work for them. We monitor prices
    both off-line and online in order to make sure we offer the
    lowest prices available. And just as we have throughout the
    history of e-commerce, we will invent new ways of delivering
    products to our customers in a secure manner.
        We also know that SNAP payment security is top-of-mind for
    policymakers. Current SNAP regulations require the use of a
    customer PIN at checkout. The capability to accept PINs for
    online debit transactions is not widespread, largely because
    technology exists to more effectively secure transactions and
    authenticate customers. As a technology company and e-commerce
    retailer, Amazon continues to innovate around security and
    authentication to protect our customers.
        I would like to share two principle recommendations with
    the Committee as you continue to examine what the future of
    SNAP should look like.
        First, we believe that the SNAP regulations should be
    modernized to take into account e-commerce. The current SNAP
    regulations were written for a brick-and-mortar SNAP Program,
    yet there are unique opportunities and challenges associated
    with the SNAP Program in the e-commerce space. The Committee
    and USDA should consider modernizing the SNAP Program
    regulations to take into account the many lessons-to-learn
    expected from the online pilot. Amazon stands ready to share
    our expertise and be part of this process.
        Second, we believe that the regulations around payments
    should not be technology-specific, but should provide
    flexibility for innovation, and to take into account e-commerce
    transactions. Amazon shares the goal of ensuring online SNAP
    payments are secure. PINs may make sense in a brick-and-mortar
    setting, but they are expensive to implement online, and are
    not the best available technology. Regulations should provide
    some flexibility for innovation around security to better
    protect SNAP recipients, and mitigate new security risks that
    may emerge. Congress and the USDA should develop a framework
    that ensures the security of these transactions without
    prescribing a specific technology with can quickly become
    obsolete.
        In conclusion, Amazon is very excited about the interest of
    Congress in exploring the benefits of expanding the SNAP
    Program to e-commerce. We are excited about this prospect and
    stand ready to assist Congress and the USDA during the upcoming
    pilot program and beyond.
        Thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Eric French, Director of Grocery, Amazon,
                                  Seattle, WA
        Thank you, Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson. My name is
    Eric French, and I am Amazon's Director of Grocery.
        Amazon's mission is to be Earth's most customer-centric company. In
    everything we do--every product or service we design--we start with the
    customer and work backwards. This approach has served our customers--
    and Amazon--well, and this is also the approach we're taking as the
    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) explores opening the SNAP program
    to e-commerce. Given our extensive experience in e-commerce, our
    demonstrated commitment to excellent customer service, and our more
    recent investment in e-commerce grocery delivery, Amazon looks forward
    to the opportunity to work with the USDA to ensure a successful
    expansion of the SNAP program into e-commerce, which we believe can
    improve access to nutritious foods, selection, and value for SNAP
    households.
    I. The Benefits of SNAP E-Commerce Grocery Delivery
        The current SNAP program is limited to traditional brick-and-mortar
    channels, which can create significant limitations and challenges for
    the individuals and families the SNAP program is intended to support.
    Not every community is home to a grocery store, let alone multiple
    stores that drive competitive pricing and selection. For the elderly,
    and individuals with disabilities, even a nearby grocery store can be
    difficult to access due to mobility challenges. In addition, single
    parent families and those lacking access to reliable transportation
    also may struggle to get to a grocery store.
        The current restriction on redeeming SNAP benefits online limits
    the ability of those with food insecurity to stretch their SNAP dollars
    by comparison shopping and allocating SNAP dollars where they can
    provide the most benefit. Those with special dietary needs (e.g.,
    gluten intolerance, diabetes) also face limited options and selection
    when they have access to only what their nearest grocery store carries.
        The promise for extending the SNAP program to e-commerce is that
    those with food insecurity can benefit from the same access to value,
    selection, and convenience that many of us enjoy.
    A. Value
        E-Commerce allows consumers the unprecedented ability to choose the
    most affordable options in making purchase decisions, allowing them to
    stretch limited food budgets further. This option should be accessible
    to those with food insecurity, who could benefit the most.
        Amazon's customers expect to come to Amazon and find the lowest
    prices across our vast selection, so we do the hard work for them.
    Amazon monitors prices--both offline and online--in order to make sure
    we offer the lowest prices available.
    B. Selection
        E-commerce retailers have the ability to offer massive selection to
    customers by leveraging fulfillment networks and sophisticated
    logistics systems that can determine where best to store items to
    ensure the quickest, most efficient delivery to customers. Knowing how
    to leverage such resources is something Amazon not only excels at, but
    has also developed significant technology to accomplish. The 2 day, 1
    day, and same day shipping Amazon has become famous for has been
    enabled by this technology and our fulfillment network, and has
    fostered our expansion into grocery retailing and delivery. As a
    result, we can offer SNAP recipients access to a broad selection of
    SNAP-eligible foods to meet their dietary needs and preferences.
    C. Convenience
        By allowing for doorstep delivery, e-commerce also provides SNAP
    recipients with a new level of convenience. This is particularly
    important for those with mobility challenges, lack of easy access to
    reliable transportation, and working and parenting schedules that make
    getting to the grocery store a challenge, as well as those in food
    deserts.
    II. Potential Challenges
        While Amazon already carries an extensive selection of SNAP-
    eligible healthy, staple foods, we're constantly innovating around the
    challenge of delivering perishable foods cost-effectively so that the
    savings can continue to be passed on to our customers. We leverage our
    significant logistics tools and fulfillment network to accomplish this,
    and this will become easier as we continue to scale our grocery
    delivery. We continue to iterate and learn, and hope to have the
    opportunity to apply our extensive knowledge to the SNAP space and
    enable a successful expansion of the program to e-commerce, which would
    provide tremendous benefits to SNAP recipients.
    A. Potential Challenges and Opportunities with Delivery
        Theft of grocery deliveries has been raised as a concern by
    Committee staff, and this challenge is not limited to the SNAP e-
    commerce delivery space; this is a challenge the e-commerce model has
    confronted more broadly, but one that has been largely mitigated over
    the years. Amazon is constantly inventing on behalf of customers,
    including inventing new ways to deliver products. Two examples of
    recent innovations include Amazon Fresh attended delivery and Amazon
    Lockers. In the unlikely event a package is stolen, Amazon has a
    longstanding record of offering customers refunds or replacements for
    missing deliveries, and this would extend to customers using SNAP
    benefits should the program be expanded to e-commerce.
    B. Online EBT Payments
        Current SNAP regulations require the use of a customer PIN at
    check-out, and this requirement extends to the online redemption of
    SNAP benefits under the USDA online demonstration project. The
    capability to accept PINs for online debit transactions is not
    widespread, largely because alternative technology exists to more
    effectively secure transactions and authenticate customers. For
    example, Amazon allows for PIN-less debit because the PIN does not
    necessarily provide better security or authentication than other tools
    and technology currently available. As a technology company and an e-
    commerce retailer, Amazon continues to innovate around security and
    authentication to protect our customers and maintain their trust.
    III. Recommendations
        The USDA's current SNAP regulations were written for a brick-and-
    mortar SNAP program. While Amazon is encouraged by the willingness of
    Congress and the USDA to explore the benefits of the online redemption
    of SNAP benefits, we also urge consideration of the unique
    opportunities and challenges of e-commerce. Rather than simply
    extending the existing SNAP regulations to e-commerce (assuming a
    successful pilot), there should be some consideration of the unique
    characteristics of e-commerce retail and grocery delivery. Modernizing
    the SNAP program should also include modernization of the regulations,
    taking into account the many learnings expected from the online
    demonstration project. Amazon stands ready to share our expertise and
    be a part of this process.
        Amazon agrees the goal of online SNAP benefit redemption should be
    for door-step delivery; after all, this is one of the largest value
    propositions of e-commerce and has been offered by Amazon since our
    founding in 1995. While Amazon offers customers flexible options for
    grocery delivery, such as attended delivery, the USDA should explore
    additional options for food delivery under the SNAP program. Amazon is
    aware of food delivery programs in communities like Baltimore that
    employ a neighborhood-based pick-up option as a way to mitigate the
    potential challenges with door-step delivery.
        Amazon shares the goal of ensuring online SNAP payments are secure.
    Security and customer trust are central to everything Amazon does and
    creates, and we invest heavily in protecting our customers and securing
    payments. As outlined earlier, more effective tools and technology
    currently exist to secure online transactions and authenticate
    customers. PINs should be a floor rather than a ceiling in securing
    online payments, and the SNAP program should provide some flexibility
    for innovation around security to better protect SNAP recipients and
    mitigate new security risks that may emerge. Amazon would like to work
    with Congress and the USDA to develop a framework that ensures the
    security of these transactions without prescribing specific
    technologies that could quickly become outdated. Furthermore, allowing
    for flexibility in meeting security standards could allow for broader
    participation of e-commerce grocery retailers, which would benefit SNAP
    recipients by offering them greater selection in online retailers.
    IV. Conclusion
        Amazon is excited that Congress and the USDA support the
    exploration of online SNAP benefit redemption.
        By enabling online redemption of SNAP benefits, recipients would
    have access to Amazon's wide variety of SNAP-eligible food options
    available for home delivery. This would open up new options for
    millions of SNAP recipients, while providing our existing customers who
    are SNAP recipients with the ability to stretch their SNAP dollars and
    choose the payment type that is best for them. We are excited about
    this prospect and stand ready to assist Congress and the USDA during
    the upcoming pilot program and beyond.
        Thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your
    questions.

        The Chairman. Let the record reflect he ended his statement
    with an extra minute left. Thank you, Mr. French.
        Mr. Lovelace, your 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF GUNNAR LOVELACE, FOUNDER AND CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE
               OFFICER, THRIVE MARKET, MARINA del RAY, CA

        Mr. Lovelace. Chairman Conaway and distinguished Members of
    the Committee, it is an honor to be here with you all today, to
    be able to testify about how technology and expanding access to
    healthy food has the potential to save billions of dollars in
    downstream medical costs in our economy.
        My name is Gunnar Lovelace. I am the founder and co-CEO of
    Thrive Market. Our mission is to make healthy living easy and
    affordable to everybody. The way that we do that is we buy
    directly from brands and cut out all the middlemen, offering
    the highest quality organic groceries that you would get at a
    normal health food store, but at 25 to 50 percent off. Instead
    of making money on the product sales themselves, we charge a
    $60 annual membership fee, which allows members all over the
    country to be able to order online and be able to get those
    groceries shipped to their home. For every paid membership, we
    give a membership away to a low-income family, a veteran, a
    teacher, or a student.
        The mission of making healthy living affordable and
    accessible to everybody is something that is deeply personal to
    me. I grew up very poor, with a single mom, saw how hard she
    worked to make healthy choices. And when my mother remarried,
    my stepfather was running a food co-op out of a farm, where I
    got to see firsthand the power of group buying as a way to make
    food more affordable and build community.
        As I progressed in my entrepreneur career, starting and
    selling a couple of software companies, I felt like there was
    an incredible opportunity to disrupt access to healthy food
    with technology. In the last 2 years, we have been able to do
    that with our investors, our co-founders, our hardworking
    employees, and our members. We have gone from one employee
    working out of my house, to working out of the backroom of a
    church, to now more than 600 employees nationally. This is a
    vision that we care about very, very deeply. We have raised
    over $140 million from 350 investors, and it is something that
    we are excited to continue.
        As we know, we face huge health epidemics in this country
    that are really systemic from pervasive lifestyle diseases.
    More than 70 percent of our population is overweight or obese.
    We spend $245 billion a year on diabetes-related illnesses,
    $444 billion a year on heart-related illnesses. These are just
    two examples of lifestyle diseases that are largely driven by
    dietary habits. The numbers are only increasing in a negative
    trend, and they disproportionately affect low-income
    communities.
        Today, you can buy almost anything online, but you cannot
    use your SNAP benefits to use e-commerce to get healthy food
    for less. This is a classic example of the digital divide, and
    it is something that we have been focused on, because 50
    percent of the families that are in our giving program that
    receive free memberships are on SNAP.
        One of the biggest concerns that we have heard about
    bringing SNAP online is the potential for fraud and abuse. We
    understand the concern, yet e-commerce is a fundamentally
    database-driven technology that allows for extreme precision
    and classification of reporting, meaning that 100 percent of
    the funds that go towards purchasing online can go towards 100
    percent approved SNAP products. Not only that, we are able to
    provide incredibly precise, transparent, and real-time
    reporting to the USDA on aggregate purchasing behavior in a way
    that doesn't exist amongst current national retailers who
    accept SNAP.
        On June 27 of this year, we launched a national campaign in
    support of the USDA committing to a firm timeline to bring SNAP
    online. We assembled a broad coalition of influencers,
    bloggers, nonprofits, and brands that we work with, to have a
    synchronized conversation around this that drove over 325,000
    petitions, 400 million media impressions around this issue. And
    we understand that SNAP is a very complex, often controversial
    program, and we applaud the USDA and their efforts to have a
    thorough, deliberate, and transparent process.
        Partially in response to our campaign, the USDA committed
    to a specific timetable of launching a pilot program in a few
    key states in the first half of 2017. We have obviously applied
    for this program. We are excited to be part of it, but even if
    we don't get into the pilot in the first wave, we are excited
    to see that SNAP is coming into the 21st century.
        Philosophically speaking, one of the things that is so
    gratifying about the work that we do, and I know that you guys
    can all relate to this, is that helping people access healthy
    food, helping people live a healthier lifestyle, is a hyper-
    scalable organizing principle that transcends ideology. It
    doesn't matter who you are, where you live, what the color of
    your skin is, everybody wants to feel good in their bodies,
    everybody wants the same thing for their children. And when we
    help people access healthy food for less, we are empowering
    families across this country, we are empowering communities,
    but we are also dealing with major macroeconomic issues with
    spiraling medical costs.
        It is an honor to be here to discuss how technology can
    drive innovation. We are excited to be part of that with SNAP
    in the long-term. We are building all sorts of other health
    incentive programs. So we look forward to the opportunity to
    collaborate, and we look forward to your questions.
        Thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lovelace follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Gunnar Lovelace, Founder and Co-Chief Executive
                   Officer, Thrive Market, Marina del Ray, CA
        Chairman Conaway and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank
    you for having me here today to testify regarding how technology can
    expand access to healthy food in a way that can save billions of
    dollars in downstream medical expenses.
        My name is Gunnar Lovelace and I'm the Founder and Co-CEO of Thrive
    Market, the fastest growing health food e-commerce company in history.
        Thrive Market's mission is to make healthy living easy and
    affordable for everyone. We do that by buying from health food brands
    directly, cutting out the middlemen and passing those savings along to
    our members, who pay $60 a year for access to the club. For every
    paying member we give away a free membership to a low-income family, a
    veteran, a teacher or a student, through our Giving program.
        The desire to make healthy living affordable to everyone is
    something that is informed by personal experience. I grew up poor with
    a single mom and saw how hard she worked to make healthy choices for
    our family. When my mother remarried, my stepfather was running a food
    co-op on an organic farm, where I got to see firsthand the power of
    group buying as a way to make food more affordable and build community.
        Later, as I progressed in my entrepreneurial career--starting and
    selling two technology companies--I always felt like there was an
    opportunity and responsibility to disrupt access to healthy food with
    technology. Together with my co-founders, our investors, employees and
    members, we have brought this vision to life at Thrive Market. Since
    launching the business in 2014, we have grown from one employee working
    out of my house, to more than 600 employees nationally working out of
    multiple locations in three states. We have raised over $160 million in
    investment capital from over 350 value-aligned investors.
        Through our Giving program, we partner with NGOs nationally to
    distribute free memberships and also accept applications on our site.
    Earlier this year we rolled out a program called Spread The Health,
    where our members may contribute a portion of their grocery savings
    directly to Thrive Gives members, offsetting the cost of their first
    few purchases through stipends. This helps people who are struggling
    with the affordability of healthy food, or don't have geographic access
    to grocery stores selling healthy food in their community. We also try
    to break down the educational barriers that some face by providing
    recipes, starter kits, and other content that helps make healthy living
    more accessible.
        This is all critically important right now, because our country is
    facing a health crisis. The emergence of lifestyle diseases is an
    epidemic ravaging our economy and our communities. More than 70% of our
    population is overweight or obese: 29.1 million Americans have
    diabetes. We spend $245 billion on diabetes and $444 billion on heart
    disease each year. These are just two examples of lifestyle diseases
    partly caused by dietary habits. And these numbers are only increasing.
    These lifestyle diseases disproportionately affect low income
    individuals, and we need to do something to help the 46 million
    Americans who are depending on SNAP benefits to feed their families and
    themselves.
        My testimony will briefly discuss how technology can help break
    down barriers for low income families in the United States, many of
    whom lack access to healthy food. I will then discuss some of the gaps,
    including the fact that SNAP benefits still cannot be used online, and
    will propose some solutions to help address these barriers.
        The proliferation of technology, specifically information
    technology, has increased in ways that no one could have predicted.
    Presently, 75% of individuals living in poverty have a smartphone.
    Through their smartphone, they can now order goods and services that
    may have previously been out of reach to them, either geographically,
    or in some cases, financially. Some goods and services benefit from the
    direct-to-consumer channel that the Internet has made possible, in that
    brands can reach their consumer directly instead of operating through a
    middleman, and can reduce their prices accordingly. For example, Amazon
    sells books at about 50% less than they could be purchased for at
    bookstores, because they don't have the retail costs and markups that a
    bookstore charges. Thrive Market is able to achieve cost savings of
    approximately 25-50% off retail prices, by buying directly from our
    suppliers, bypassing traditional distribution channels, stripping out
    all intermediary costs, and passing those cost savings directly to our
    members.
        The Internet, then, makes goods more financially affordable, and
    more geographically accessible, which is especially relevant as it
    relates to food, as 23 million people around the country live in food
    deserts, areas without access to healthy food. One in five children are
    classified as food-insecure. Another fact of note is that only 30% of
    families living in poverty own a car, which means that their mobility
    is severely limited when it comes to purchasing groceries. For years,
    people have only been able to buy the food that is in their
    neighborhood, and have been dependent on the decisions of grocers and
    farmer[s'] markets to open in their areas, variables that are out of
    their control.
        Now all that is changing, thanks to the Internet and the
    proliferation of smartphones, even for those living in poverty. At
    Thrive Market, we have given away tens of thousands of free memberships
    to families all over the country, many of whom are buying healthy,
    natural products for the first time. We have also given away hundreds
    of thousands of dollars in stipends to help our lowest-income members
    afford to buy the food on our site, which is priced to be in line with
    the retail prices of conventional equivalents.
        It's amazing that in the 21st century you still can't use SNAP
    benefits online, but one can buy almost anything else online. This
    example of the digital divide has been a focal point for us because
    more than 50% of the families in our Giving program are on government
    assistance. We know that 83% of all SNAP benefits go to a household
    with a child, senior or disabled person, lifting 4.7 million Americans
    out of poverty each year. Every $1 spent on SNAP results in $1.73 of
    economic activity. Given increased levels of Internet connectivity, if
    SNAP were brought online nationally, the positive effect on our
    nation's most vulnerable populations would be immediate and dramatic.
        The biggest concern we've heard about bringing SNAP online from
    various stakeholders were questions about how fraud was going to be
    managed. There was a concern that funds would be used to buy products
    that are not SNAP approved. The power of e-commerce is that it is
    fundamentally a database driven technology that allows for precision in
    classification and reporting. This means we can easily categorize the
    grocery products in our database which are SNAP approved. Not only do
    we have full control of what recipients can spend their money on, we
    also can provide extremely precise and transparent reporting to the
    USDA on purchasing behavior in a way that doesn't easily exist amongst
    current retailers accepting SNAP.
        On June 27th of this year, we launched a national campaign in
    support of the USDA bringing SNAP online. We assembled a broad
    coalition of influencers, brands, media partners, NGOs, celebrities and
    bloggers to drive a synchronized conversation nationally around this
    issue. By utilizing our network to spread the word about the need to
    bring SNAP online, we galvanized a coalition, gathered 325,000
    signatures in support, and generated 400 million media impressions, all
    in just 3 months.
        In response to our campaign, the USDA has committed to a specific
    timetable for launching an online SNAP pilot program in a few key
    states in the first half of 2017. We are in the process of applying to
    be a part of that pilot, and regardless of whether we as a company are
    a part of the pilot, we are encouraged that tangible steps are being
    taken to bring SNAP into the 21st century.
        We would strongly encourage the USDA to roll out the pilot more
    quickly, and then to expand the pilot nationally in a rapid time frame,
    so that all American families across the country can access healthy
    food.
        Innovation in the SNAP program is vital. From a pure economic
    perspective, if we are going to have a $74 billion annual SNAP program,
    we need to make sure that the food we are giving families isn't causing
    them to get sick, resulting in increased taxpayer costs to the medical
    system downstream via ballooning lifestyle diseases.
        Conclusion: Helping people to get healthy is a hyper-scalable
    organizing principle that transcends ideology. It doesn't matter who
    you are, where you live, what the color of your skin is, or whether you
    are a liberal or conservative. Everyone wants to be healthy and
    everyone wants the same thing for their children. A robust Federal
    effort to push forward innovation in the SNAP program and expand the
    program quickly, so that all SNAP participants can participate, will
    help save billions of dollars in health care spending in the long run,
    and will help low-income families in our country live healthier,
    happier lives.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lovelace. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Beal, 5 minutes.

          STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. BEAL, J.D., VICE PRESIDENT,
      SECRETARY, AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, BALLS FOOD STORES,
                 KANSAS CITY, KS; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL
                          GROCERS ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Beal. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Peterson, and Members of the Committee.
        My name is Mike Beal, and I am the Chief Operating Officer
    of Balls Food Stores. It is an honor and privilege to be here
    with you today.
        Balls Food Stores is a locally owned, third generation,
    family-owned company, started by Mollie and Sidney Ball in
    1923. We currently own and operate 27 retail grocery stores in
    the greater Kansas City metropolitan area under a few different
    banners, but primarily Hen House and Price Chopper Foods. Our
    stores are full-service supermarkets, and have accepted SNAP as
    a form of tender, essentially since each location opened.
        Balls Food Stores provides jobs in our local community for
    approximately 3,200 teammates. We operate a small distribution
    center that operates primarily to allow us to buy large
    quantities of merchandise, and to purchase and distribute local
    produce for our stores. Balls Food Stores is one of the early
    adopters of the buy local produce movement nationally; so much
    so that we worked with the Kellogg Foundation in their efforts
    to develop a distribution model to bring fresh, nutritious, and
    affordable food to consumers around the country.
        Balls Food Stores is a member of the National Grocers
    Association, and I was honored when NGA asked me to share our
    story and successes with the Double Up Food Bucks Program with
    this Committee. I believe our success with the program has been
    fantastic for the communities, our stores served, and our SNAP
    customers who are now able to stretch their benefits further,
    while purchasing local produce and supporting local farmers in
    our communities.
        The Double Up program operated by Balls Food is a result of
    a collaboration between Balls Food and five other entities. The
    primary goals of the program are: first, provide access to and
    increase affordability of fresh fruits and vegetables for
    recipients of SNAP benefits; second, provide greater
    opportunities for local farmers to increase their income by
    selling more produce locally; and third, provide more dollars
    to the local community.
        In 2015, we launched a pilot Double Up program in four of
    our Price Chopper stores. A fifth Price Chopper was added in
    late 2015. Because of our success, we were able to convert the
    pilot to a year-round program, operating in all 14 of our Price
    Chopper stores in 2016.
        The premise of the Double Up program is very simple: for
    each dollar a SNAP customer spends on local produce, using an
    EBT card to pay, that customer earns a dollar to spend on fresh
    produce on a future shopping trip, up to $25 per day in
    earnings. The earnings by the SNAP customer are accumulated
    throughout the year until that customer notifies our cashier
    that they want to spend some or all of their earnings on any
    type of produce on a later shopping trip.
        The execution of the Double Up program relies primarily on
    technology currently being used by many grocers. First, we
    designate local produce items using a simple product code for
    each locally grown item. Second, our point-of-sale system is
    programmed to look for transactions in which local produce
    items are purchased using an EBT benefit card for payment. And
    last, when customers shop at our Price Chopper stores using
    their loyalty card, that customer's earnings from the purchase
    of local produce items is then accumulated by our loyalty
    software system for future produce spending by that customer,
    whether or not an EBT card is used on the future purchase. This
    allows our SNAP customers to purchase healthy produce items
    throughout the year.
        Additional components of the program are properly
    identifying local produce items using specific signage in the
    produce department, properly training store produce teammates,
    management teammates, and cashiers, and establishing
    relationships with local farmers. A solid distribution system
    for local products is crucial to having a strong program, as
    this adds to the local produce variety. If there isn't a fairly
    good selection of locally grown produce items that are well
    marked in the produce department, customers get frustrated and
    are less likely to use the program.
        Much of the success of our program can be attributed to our
    cashiers, who have been tasked with the job of explaining the
    program to SNAP customers. Many customers believed there was a
    catch, because no one gets something for free for doing
    something they would like to do if they had the financial
    resources to purchase healthier food products. The pilot was
    designed so that the purchase history of SNAP customers could
    be measured over time to determine if the program has led to
    the purchase of healthier food items by SNAP customers. Our
    program partners are currently analyzing our massive data
    collection to confirm healthier purchase habits by SNAP
    customers.
        There were 9,874 different unique customers that
    participated in our pilot program, and those customers
    accounted for over 23,400 Double Up transactions. Over 60
    percent of the Double Up dollars earned were redeemed; a very
    high redemption rate, according to other grocers. The high
    redemption rate in our stores has actually increased to over 70
    percent as of May 2016.
        We at Balls Food Stores strongly believe that the Double Up
    program has encouraged our customers to eat healthier, and to
    try new fruits and vegetables. We believe the Double Up program
    is very feasible and can be replicated by most grocers around
    the country. In just a few months, thousands of SNAP families
    were able to take part in the Double Up pilot program. Programs
    like Double Up are important in that they incentivize
    customers, without mandating a purchase of healthy food. In my
    opinion, a free market-based program is always preferable to a
    mandated government program.
        Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Beal follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Michael J. Beal, J.D., Vice President, Secretary,
      and Chief Operating Officer, Balls Food Stores, Kansas City, KS; on
                     Behalf of National Grocers Association
        Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of
    the Committee. My name is Mike Beal, and I am the Chief Operating
    Officer of Balls Food Stores. It is an honor and a privilege to be here
    with you today.
        Balls Food Stores is a locally owned, third generation, family
    owned company started by Mollie and Sidney Ball in 1923. Our company is
    currently led by David Ball, who follows his father, Fred Ball, a
    person who was known nationally in the grocery industry for his
    innovation, character and charity to our community. Balls Food Stores
    currently owns and operates 27 retail grocery stores in the greater
    Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri metropolitan area under a few
    different banners, but primarily Price Chopper and Hen House. Our
    stores are all full service supermarkets and have accepted SNAP as a
    form of tender essentially since each location opened.
        I started working with our company during my senior year in
    college. After receiving my Bachelor degree in Civil Engineering at the
    University of Kansas in 1979, I returned to the University of Kansas to
    earn a Masters in Business Administration, all the while working with
    the company in our stores. After completing my Masters in 1981, I
    worked in our stores until returning to school to earn a Juris
    Doctorate degree from the University of Missouri at Kansas City. I
    practiced law for 9 years in the areas of corporate mergers and
    acquisitions, general corporate law and corporate finance, before
    returning to Balls Food Stores in 1998 to become its Chief Financial
    Officer. In 2012, I assumed the position as the Chief Operating Officer
    of Balls Food Stores.
        Balls Food Stores provides jobs in our local community for
    approximately 3,200 teammates, including a subsidiary that produces
    some of the best pies in the country for many grocers around the
    country. We have hundreds of teammates that have worked for us longer
    than 20 years and we operate a small distribution center that operates
    primarily to allow us to buy large quantities of merchandise at
    discount and to purchase and distribute local produce to our stores and
    other local grocers. Balls Food Stores was one of the early adopters of
    the buy local produce movement nationally, so much so that we worked
    with the Kellogg Foundation in their efforts to develop a distribution
    model to bring fresh, nutritious and affordable food to consumers
    around the country. Our company was a founding member of our grocery
    wholesaler, Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (AWG), a member
    cooperative supplying over 3,800 stores in 35 states.
        The Price Chopper banner or trade name we operate is licensed to us
    by AWG. There are 37 other retail grocery stores in the Kansas City
    metropolitan area that also use the Price Chopper trade name in their
    business. Those 38 stores are owned and operated by four other families
    who are also members of AWG.
        Balls Food Stores is a member of the National Grocers Association
    (NGA), and I was honored when NGA asked me to share our story and
    successes with the Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) program with this
    Committee. I believe our success with the program has been fantastic
    for the communities our stores serve and the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program (SNAP) customers who are now able to stretch their
    benefits further while purchasing local produce and supporting local
    farmers in our communities.
        The DUFB program operated by Balls Food Stores is the result of a
    collaboration of a number of entities: Good Natured Farms, Inc., the
    Fair Food Network, the University of Kansas Medical Center, the Mid-
    America Regional Council, and the Health Care Foundation of Greater
    Kansas City. The primary goals of the program are to: (1) provide
    access to and increase affordability of fresh fruits and vegetables for
    recipients of SNAP benefits, (2) provide greater opportunities for
    local farmers to increase their income by selling more produce locally
    and (3) provide more dollars to the local community.
        The idea for the DUFB program was brought to us by Diana Endicott,
    the owner of Good Natured Family Farms. Diana has partnered with our
    company for the better part of 15 years and has introduced to us over
    150 family owned local farmers operating within 200 miles of Kansas
    City. Ms. Endicott is well known nationally for her work with local
    farmers, local farm initiatives and healthy eating initiatives. It was
    while working with the Kellogg Foundation and their healthy,
    affordable, local food initiative that Diana was introduced to Dr. Oran
    Hesterman, the President of the Fair Food Network. Dr. Hesterman had
    some creative ideas to increase markets for local farmers and provide
    healthier food options for people. Initially, the DUFB program was
    piloted by the Fair Food Network in Michigan at local farmers' markets.
    While successful, there was a realization that offering the program at
    retail grocery stores would reach more SNAP customers and provide an
    opportunity to better evaluate SNAP recipients' purchasing habits over
    time because grocers have the capacity to retain customer purchase
    data. Local farmers' markets typically do not utilize technology that
    will permit anyone to analyze customer purchase data.
        In 2015, we launched a pilot of DUFB in four of our Price Chopper
    stores in the Kansas City area. Because of the initial success of the
    program, a fifth Price Chopper store was added late in the summer of
    2015. We experienced tremendous success with the pilot and were able to
    convert the pilot to a year-round program operating in all 14 of our
    Price Chopper stores in 2016. It is the goal of Balls Food Stores and
    the other partners in the DUFB program to extend the DUFB program to
    the remaining 37 Price Chopper stores in the Kansas City area in 2017.
        The premise of DUFB is very simple: for every dollar a customer
    spends on local produce using an EBT card to pay, that customer earns a
    dollar to spend on produce from any source on a future shopping trip,
    up to $25 per day in earnings. The ``earnings'' by the SNAP customer
    are accumulated throughout the year until that customer notifies our
    cashier that they want to spend some or all of their earnings on any
    type of produce on a later shopping trip.
        The execution of the DUFB program relies primarily on technology
    currently being used by many grocers: (1) we designate local produce
    items using a unique product code for each locally grown item, (2) our
    point of sale system (POS) is programmed to look for transactions in
    which local produce items are purchased using an EBT benefit card for
    payment and (3) when customers shop at our Price Chopper stores using
    their loyalty card (which is free to customers), that customer's
    earnings from the purchase of local produce items is then accumulated
    by our loyalty software system for future spending by that customer,
    whether or not an EBT card is used on the future purchase and whether
    or not local produce is purchased in the future. This allows our SNAP
    customers to purchase healthy produce items throughout the year (even
    at times when locally grown items are not as plentiful because of
    growing seasons) and to purchase all of their produce for their holiday
    family meals, if desired.
        The beauty of the DUFB program we operate is its simplicity--our
    SNAP customers shop like they normally do using their loyalty cards
    (which also provide discounts off of many other grocery items sold in
    our stores) and pay using their EBT card, with the only difference
    being that the purchase of locally grown produce items with their EBT
    card earns them incentive dollars to buy more nutritious fruits and
    vegetables. A SNAP customer doesn't have to enroll in our DUFB program
    and they don't need to remember to bring anything back to the store to
    redeem their incentives.
        Additional components of the DUFB program that contribute to its
    success are properly identifying local produce items to customers using
    specific signage in the produce department, properly training store
    produce teammates, management teammates and cashiers and establishing
    relationships with local farmers to purchase their products. Many
    grocers around the country have relationships with local farmers in
    place; however a solid distribution system for those products is
    crucial to having a strong DUFB program as this adds to the local
    produce variety available to SNAP customers. If there isn't a fairly
    good selection of locally grown items that are well marked in the
    produce department, customers get frustrated and are less likely to use
    the program.
        Our cashiers inform SNAP participants of the money they've earned
    by purchasing local produce. We have seen SNAP customers purchase
    enough local produce that their entire produce order during their next
    trip is given to them free of charge, which is fantastic.
        Much of the success of our program can be attributed to our
    cashiers. Our cashiers have been tasked with the job of explaining the
    program to SNAP customers, and they have done an excellent job making
    sure our customers understand the program, which items are eligible for
    the Double Up match, and most importantly, why they are receiving these
    benefits to redeem in the store. One thing we learned very early in the
    program was that many customers didn't use the program initially
    because they thought it was too good to be true. Many customers
    believed there was a ``catch'' because ``no one gets something for
    free'' from doing something they would otherwise like to do if they had
    the financial resources to purchase healthier food products for their
    family. It was only because of our cashiers that our customers
    understood that ``free'' really meant free as a result of purchasing
    local produce.
        As I have previously mentioned, this program has seen tremendous
    success in our stores. The pilot was designed so that the purchase
    history of SNAP customers could be measured over time to determine if
    the DUFB program has led to the purchase of healthier food products by
    those customers. Our program partners are currently analyzing our
    massive collection of purchase data history in our POS system to
    confirm healthier purchase habits by SNAP customers. In addition,
    during the pilot, one of our program partners interviewed both SNAP and
    non-SNAP customers, along with some of our store teammates, to learn
    their thoughts about the DUFB program. In total, 1,422 customers were
    interviewed: 104 of whom were DUFB participants, 332 SNAP customers who
    did not participate in the DUFB program and 986 non-SNAP customers.
    Fifty five store teammates also were interviewed about their experience
    with the program and the value it provides to customers.
        The DUFB participants surveyed reported that they generally had
    increased their purchase and consumption of fruits and vegetables,
    which we would all agree are healthy food choices. In addition, those
    same customers reported that they were budgeting differently for
    groceries because of the DUFB program.
        Of the 332 SNAP customers not participating in the DUFB program,
    most of them stated that they were very or somewhat likely to
    participate in the DUFB program on their next visit. The consensus of
    the 986 customers surveyed who were non-SNAP customers was that the
    DUFB program helps SNAP customers save money, encourages healthier
    eating habits and supports local farmers.
        The survey of our 55 teammates reported that our cashiers found the
    DUFB program was easy to implement, our cashiers expressed appreciation
    for a program that helps lower income families eat healthier (more than
    a few of our cashiers were once SNAP recipients themselves), our store
    directors felt that our produce departments had a greater focus on
    locally grown produce as a result of the DUFB program and our store
    directors expressed appreciation for participating in the DUFB program
    and would welcome the opportunity to participate in the program in the
    future.
        There were 9,874 different customers that participated in the pilot
    program and those customers accounted for over 23,400 DUFB transactions
    starting in June of 2015. On average, our pilot stores saw 2,670 SNAP
    customers per month during the pilot program. The stores in the pilot
    program had between 8.7% and 14.5% EBT business as a part of their
    regular business. We were very pleased that, between June and the end
    of December 2015, over 60% of the DUFB dollars earned were redeemed,
    representing over $42,200 in produce purchases by those customers. That
    is a very high percentage of redemption according to all the grocers we
    have talked to about redemption of any store incentive program. The
    high redemption rate in our stores has actually increased to over 70%
    as of the end of May 2016. In addition, Balls Food Stores experienced
    over a 12% increase in sales of local produce items at the pilot stores
    compared to the prior year.
        We at Balls Food Stores believe strongly that the DUFB program has
    encouraged our customers to eat healthier and try new fruits and
    vegetables. We believe the DUFB program is very feasible and can be
    replicated by most grocers around the country as long as those grocers
    have a loyalty system to accumulate earning incentives. Most non-SNAP
    customers were supportive of the DUFB program and most SNAP customers
    who hadn't used the program were likely to use the program in the
    future. DUFB customers reported that the program is easy to use and
    helped them save money while eating healthier. Importantly, the
    potential reach of the DUFB program in grocery stores is immense. In
    just a few months, thousands of SNAP families were able to take part in
    the DUFB pilot program.
        Although there is compelling evidence that diets rich in fruits and
    vegetables can lower the risk of many chronic diseases, cost has been a
    major barrier to purchasing fresh produce. Programs like DUFB are
    important in that they incentivize customers without mandating the
    purchase of healthy food. In my opinion, a free market based program is
    always preferable to a mandated government program. Providing a program
    like DUFB in our stores has allowed our SNAP customers to learn more
    about healthy eating, to try new produce, and to stretch their SNAP
    dollars further, without spending more out of their pockets. We are
    helping customers and their families afford fresh produce and are
    working to improve their health by offering this program.
                                   attachment
    Double Up Food Bucks Kansas City Pilot Program
    May 2016

    Cheryl A. Gibson, Ph.D., Heather Valentine, M.S., R.D., Sarah
    Liljegren, B.S., The University of Kansas Medical Center
    Table of Contents
      Figures
      Tables
      Acknowledgements
      Executive Summary
      Introduction
      Methodology
      Customer Survey Data

        Non-SNAP Customers
        SNAP Customers not using DUFB
        SNAP Customers using DUFB
        Grocery Store Assessments

      Price Chopper Employee Interviews

        Cashiers
        Store Directors

      Transaction Data
      Recommendations
      Discussion
      Summary
      Appendices
        Appendix A: Survey for Non-SNAP Customers
        Appendix B: Survey for SNAP Customers not using DUFB
        Appendix C: Survey for SNAP Customers using DUFB
        Appendix D: Grocery Store Assessment
        Appendix E: Cashier Interview Instrument
        Appendix F: Store Director Interview Instrument
    Figures
      Figure 1. Pilot DUFB Price Chopper Locations
      Figure 2. Locations of Surveys Completed by Non-SNAP Customers
      Figure 3. Age of Non-SNAP Customers
      Figure 4. Sources of Information about DUFB
      Figure 5. Level of Support from Non-SNAP Customers
      Figure 6. Locations of Surveys Completed by SNAP Customers not using
        DUFB
      Figure 7. Age of SNAP Customers not using DUFB
      Figure 8. Sources of Information about DUFB
      Figure 9. Likelihood of DUFB Participation During Next Grocery Store
        Visit
      Figure 10. Locations of Surveys Completed by DUFB Participants
      Figure 11. Age of DUFB Participants
      Figure 12. Sources of Information about DUFB
      Figure 13. Level of Difficulty to Identify Fruits and Vegetables
      Figure 14.Time Spent to Purchase Fruits and Vegetables
      Figure 15. Overall Ease of Program Use
      Figure 16. Amount of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Bought
      Figure 17. Amount of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Consumed
      Figure 18. Amount of Potato Chips, Candy, and Cookies Consumed
      Figure 19. Ease of Program Implementation According to Cashiers
      Figure 20. Length of Time to Complete DUFB Transaction
      Figure 21. Cashier Readiness after Training
      Figure 22. DUFB Earned
      Figure 23. DUFB Redeemed
    Tables
      Table 1. Most Commonly Reported [ZIP] Codes of Non-SNAP Customers
      Table 2. Most Commonly Reported [ZIP] Codes of SNAP Customers Not
        Participating in DUFB
      Table 3. Most Commonly Reported [ZIP] Codes of DUFB Participants
      Table 4. Top Local Products Purchased with DUFB
      Table 5. Top Products Purchased with DUFB Rewards
    Acknowledgements
        Special acknowledgements are extended to the many individuals and
    organizations for their contribution to the development and fulfillment
    of this evaluation report. We thank the Health Care Foundation of
    Greater Kansas City and the Franciscan Sisters of St. Mary, which
    provided funding to support the pilot evaluation project. We are
    grateful to Oran Hesterman, Fair Food Network, for supporting the
    expansion of the Double Up Food Bucks program into the metropolitan
    area. We express our gratitude to Price Chopper, especially David Ball,
    for agreeing to pilot the nutrition incentive program in his Kansas
    City stores. We are grateful for Diana Endicott, Good Natured Family
    Farms, who pushed for a grocery store pilot project to be implemented
    and evaluated in Kansas City.
        The evaluation team also thanks the individuals who took the time
    out of their demanding schedules to participate in the interviews.
    These individuals provided insight into how to enhance the Double Up
    Food Bucks program, providing suggestions on implementation, training,
    operations, and continued maintenance. Additionally, we thank the
    following individuals at Price Chopper who were instrumental in the
    evaluation project. We thank Bill Esch for his help in facilitating the
    interview process with cashiers. We also express gratitude for Scott
    Bayne's help in understanding units of locally grown produce sold and
    sales figures. Appreciation is also extended to Lindy Zimmerman, who
    shared volumes of transaction data with us so that we could track
    purchasing habits and redemptions.
        The evaluation team acknowledges Donna Martin, Mid-America Regional
    Council, for her thoughtful review of the findings, and her input
    during the drafting of the final evaluation report. Finally, we thank
    the many research assistants who contributed to the completion of the
    evaluation project: Ahnna Nanoski, Katie Green, Leslie Gedminas,
    Rebecca Mount, Scott Misamore, Taylor Craven, and Zach Boal.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] >

    Executive Summary
        Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) is a program designed to increase
    access to and affordability of fresh fruits and vegetables for
    beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
    The DUFB program was launched at four Price Chopper locations in the
    Kansas City metropolitan area in the summer of 2015. A research team at
    the University of Kansas Medical Center conducted a mixed-methods
    evaluation to assess the program's impact as well as benefits and
    challenges to the program. Overall, feedback gained about the program
    was positive and supportive.
    Customer Surveys

       Non-SNAP customers were supportive of the program and
            thought it provided benefits for SNAP customers, including
            saving money and eating healthier.

       SNAP customers who had not used the program reported they
            were likely to utilize the program during their next visit to
            the store.

       DUFB participants reported that the program was easy to use
            and was helping them eat healthier as well as save money.
    Price Chopper Employee Interviews
       Price Chopper employees enjoyed helping a portion of their
            customers eat healthier and save money.

       Employees reported that the program was easy to implement
            and did not add a burden on the time to process transactions.

       Store directors were satisfied with their participation in
            the program and reported they would choose to implement the
            program again.
    Transaction Data
       Transaction data displayed a redemption rate of 61% through
            the end of 2015.

       A total of over 8,600 unduplicated customers participated in
            the program from June through December.

       An increase of local produce sold was seen across the pilot
            stores.
    Recommendations
       Recommendations for enhancing implementation of the program
            emphasize increased communication and awareness of the program,
            for both grocery store employees and program customers.
    Introduction
        The Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) grocery store pilot program was
    launched in the Kansas City metropolitan area in the summer of 2015.
    Four Price Chopper stores were included in the pilot program, with
    stores located in both Kansas and Missouri. See Figure 1 for these
    Price Chopper locations that piloted the DUFB program. The Price
    Chopper store on Roe Boulevard launched the DUFB program on June 11,
    2015, while the other three stores launched the program on July 1,
    2015. Although not included in the evaluation plan, a fifth store
    (located on State Avenue) began implementing the program in September
    due to customer requests.
    Figure 1. Pilot DUFB Price Chopper Locations
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Store                              Location
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              1   4301 State Ave, Kansas City, KS
              2   4950 Roe Blvd, Mission, KS
              3   9550 Blue Ridge Blvd, Kansas City, MO
              4   12220 S. U.S. Hwy. 71, Grandview, MO
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The goal of the DUFB program is to increase access to and
    affordability of fresh, nutritious fruits and vegetables for
    beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
    Additionally, the program aims to support local farmers and the local
    economy. To achieve these goals, the program provides a match of $1
    that can be spent on any fruits or vegetables when customers purchase
    $1 of local produce using their SNAP benefits on their Electronic
    Benefit Transfer (EBT) card. The program utilizes Chopper Shopper
    loyalty cards to track the local produce purchases and the earned
    incentives. Earned Double Up Food Bucks can be used that same day or
    saved for future use. The DUFB program has previously been implemented
    successfully in several areas nationwide, including Michigan, Arizona,
    New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah.
        Mid America Regional Council (MARC) in collaboration with Fair Food
    Network (FFN) contracted with the University of Kansas Medical Center
    to evaluate the incentive program at the four Price Chopper pilot
    locations. The primary objective of the evaluation was to track the
    implementation process of DUFB and provide insight for methods to
    improve this process for potential replication at other grocery stores.
    The evaluation sought to meet this objective by assessing customer
    viewpoints through the administration of intercept surveys, in-depth
    interviews with cashiers and store managers, environmental scans of the
    store environment and assessment of transaction data.
    Methodology
        Evaluation of the Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) program involved a
    mixed-methods approach including customer surveys, Price Chopper
    employee interviews, and analysis of transaction data.
        Feedback from Price Chopper customers on the DUFB program was
    garnered using surveys conducted by trained research assistants at the
    participating grocery stores. The survey sampling plan and schedule was
    developed and implemented based on times SNAP customers most frequently
    shopped at the stores. Surveys were conducted on weekdays and weekends
    as well as during daytime and evening hours to help capture customers
    who may shop at different times and days of the week.
        In addition to conducting customer surveys, interviews were
    completed with Price Chopper employees to gain feedback about their
    experiences with implementation of the program. Interviewers met with
    Price Chopper cashiers, produce managers and store directors, utilizing
    standardized interview instruments. Interviews were digitally recorded,
    transcribed, and analyzed for themes across all responses.
        Program transaction data was shared by Price Chopper and used to
    examine purchasing trends by program customers. Excel was used for data
    analysis.
    Customer Survey Data
        To evaluate the perceptions of Price Chopper customers about the
    Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) program in the Kansas City metropolitan
    area, trained research assistants from the University of Kansas Medical
    Center (KUMC) surveyed individuals at the four pilot grocery stores.
    The administration of intercept surveys took place over the span of 4
    months, from July through October of 2015. Surveyed individuals
    included: (1) non-SNAP customers, (2) SNAP customers who had not used
    the DUFB program, and (3) SNAP customers who had used the DUFB program.
        As the survey data was collected, responses were entered into a
    database. Once surveying was completed, the responses were verified
    against the hard copies and analyzed.
        The following section provides a summary of responses gathered from
    the three customer groups.
    Non-SNAP Customers
        Nine hundred eighty six (n=986) surveys were completed by non-SNAP
    customers. Of the store locations, 229 (23%) non-SNAP customer surveys
    were completed at Blue Ridge, 215 (22%) were completed at Grandview,
    151 (15%) were completed at State Avenue, and 391 (40%) were completed
    at Roeland Park (see Figure 2). See Appendix A for the survey
    instrument utilized for non-SNAP customers.
    Figure 2. Locations of Surveys Completed by Non-SNAP Customers
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        When asked in what [ZIP C]ode they resided, respondents gave
    answers representing 83 different [ZIP C]odes. Many participants
    indicated that they live in Wyandotte County (KS) or Jackson County
    (MO). See Table 1 for the five most commonly reported [ZIP C]odes of
    non-SNAP customers.

        Table 1. Most Commonly Reported [ZIP] Codes of Non-SNAP Customers
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Number of
       [ZIP] Code       Respondents         City        County       State
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             64134           144 (15%)  Kansas City  Jackson      MO
             64030           109 (11%)  Grandview    Jackson      MO
             66103             85 (9%)  Kansas City  Wyandotte    KS
             66102             82 (8%)  Kansas City  Wyandotte    KS
             66205             65 (7%)  Mission      Johnson      KS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Additionally, participants were asked to share the year they were
    born, which was used to calculate their approximate age. As shown in
    Figure 3, respondents represented a variety of age ranges with the
    largest portions of individuals indicating that they were either in
    their 50s (n=199, 20%) or in their 60s (n=199, 20%).
    Figure 3. Age of Non-SNAP Customers
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        When asked if they had heard of the DUFB program before shopping
    that day, a majority indicated that they had not heard of the program
    (n=821, 83%). As displayed in Figure 4, of those who had heard about
    it, the most common sources of information included the grocery store
    (n=116) and a flyer/brochure (n=20). Other sources of information
    listed include TV, word of mouth, and social media.
    Figure 4. Sources of Information about DUFB
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Those who had heard of DUFB before shopping that day were asked to
    share what they knew about the program. Many respondents commented that
    the DUFB program is meant to save people money on groceries (n=88) as
    well as that the program involves buying produce and/or local produce
    (n=54).
        Individuals who had not heard of the program were asked if they had
    learned about DUFB while in the store that day, perhaps seeing within-
    store signage, talking with produce staff, cashiers sharing information
    about DUFB, etc. A majority responded that they had not received any
    information (n=774 out of 851, 91%) while the remaining 9% of
    respondents (n=77) reported that they heard of the program that day
    while shopping in the store.
        When asked if they thought there were any benefits to the program,
    a majority (n=773 out of 874, 88%) responded affirmatively, stating
    there were benefits to DUFB participation. Of those who reported
    benefits, the most common perceived benefits of the DUFB program
    include that it helps people save money (n=389), encourages individuals
    to eat healthier or eat more fruits and vegetables (n=256), and that it
    supports local farmers or the local economy (n=105). Some respondents
    were unsure if there were benefits to the program (n=59, 7%) and 42
    (5%) indicated that they did not think there were benefits to the
    program.
        Finally, non-SNAP customers were asked about their level of support
    for a program that provides small amounts of extra money to low-income
    families to buy more locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables. About
    75% of respondents indicated that they were very supportive of DUFB
    (see Figure 5 for the distribution of responses to this particular
    question).
    Figure 5. Level of Support from Non-SNAP Customers
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    SNAP Customers Not Using DUFB
        Three hundred thirty two surveys (n=332) were completed by SNAP
    customers that had not participated in DUFB. Of the four store
    locations, 71 (21%) surveys were completed at Blue Ridge, 48 (14%) were
    completed at Grandview, 114 (34%) were completed at State Avenue, and
    99 (30%) were completed at Roeland Park (see Figure 6). See Appendix B
    for the survey instrument utilized for SNAP customers that had not
    participated in DUFB.
    Figure 6. Locations of Surveys Completed by SNAP Customers not using
            DUFB
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] >

        When asked to indicate the [ZIP C]ode in which they reside,
    respondents gave answers representing 49 different [ZIP C]odes. Similar
    to the non-SNAP respondents, a majority of participants indicated that
    they live in Wyandotte County (KS) or Jackson County (MO). See Table 2
    for the five most commonly reported [ZIP C]odes of SNAP respondents not
    using DUFB.

        Table 2. Most Commonly Reported [ZIP] Codes of SNAP Customers Not
                              Participating in DUFB
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Number of
       [ZIP] Code       Respondents         City        County       State
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             66104            54 (16%)  Kansas City  Wyandotte    KS
             66102            49 (15%)  Kansas City  Wyandotte    KS
             64134            32 (10%)  Kansas City  Jackson      MO
             64030             26 (8%)  Grandview    Jackson      MO
             66101             22 (7%)  Kansas City  Wyandotte    KS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Additionally, participants were asked to share the year they were
    born, which was used to calculate their approximate age. Many
    respondents were either in their 30s (n=100, 30%) or in their 20s
    (n=89, 27%). Figure 7 displays the distribution of ages of SNAP
    customers not using DUFB.
    Figure 7. Age of SNAP Customers not using DUFB
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        When asked if they had heard of DUFB before shopping that day, a
    majority indicated that they had not heard of the program (n=235, 71%).
    Of those who had heard about it, the most common sources of information
    included the grocery store (n=56), a flyer/brochure (n=19), or a friend
    or family member (n=9). Other sources of information listed included
    cashiers and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
    Infants and Children (WIC). Figure 8 summarizes sources of information
    about DUFB reported by survey respondents.
    Figure 8. Sources of Information about DUFB
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Those who had heard of DUFB before shopping that day were asked to
    share what they knew about the program. The most common responses
    include that the program helps people save money (n=25) as well as that
    the program involves buying produce (n=32).
        When asked their reasoning for not using the DUFB program that day,
    the most commonly reported reasons were that they did not know about
    the program (n=64), that they weren't buying produce that day (n=21),
    or that they did not have money on their EBT card (n=21).
        Finally, respondents were asked how likely they were to participate
    in the program the next time they were shopping at the store. A
    majority (n=232, 70%) indicated that they were very likely to
    participate in DUFB during their next store visit. Only 3% (n=10)
    reported that they were not very or not at all likely to participate.
    See Figure 9 for the distribution of responses to this question.
    Figure 9. Likelihood of DUFB Participation During Next Grocery Store
            Visit
     [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    SNAP Customers Using DUFB
        One hundred four surveys (n=104) were completed by SNAP customers
    who had participated in the Double Up Food Bucks program. Of the four
    store locations, 17 (16%) DUFB customer surveys were completed at Blue
    Ridge, 27 (26%) were completed at Grandview, 34 (33%) were completed at
    State Avenue, and 26 (25%) were completed at Roeland Park. Figure 10
    graphically displays the distribution of responses by store. The survey
    instrument used with SNAP users who had used DUFB can be found in
    Appendix C.
    Figure 10. Locations of Surveys Completed by DUFB Participants
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        When asked the [ZIP C]ode in which they reside, participants
    reported 23 different [ZIP C]odes. A majority of respondents indicated
    that they lived in either Wyandotte County (KS) or Jackson County (MO).
    See Table 3 for the five most commonly reported [ZIP C]odes of surveyed
    DUFB participants.

        Table 3. Most Commonly Reported [ZIP] Codes of DUFB Participants
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Number of
       [ZIP] Code       Respondents         City        County       State
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             66102            20 (19%)  Kansas City  Wyandotte    KS
             66104            12 (12%)  Kansas City  Wyandotte    KS
             64134            11 (11%)  Kansas City  Jackson      MO
             64030            11 (11%)  Grandview    Jackson      MO
             66101              8 (8%)  Kansas City  Wyandotte    KS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Survey respondents also were asked in what year they were born.
    Individuals were most commonly in their 30s (n=33, 32%) followed by
    their 20s (n=25, 24%). See Figure 11 for a distribution of age ranges
    of survey respondents.
    Figure 11. Age of DUFB Participants
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        When asked if the SNAP customer had heard of DUFB before that day,
    20% of respondents (n=20) reported that they had not while 80
    respondents (80%) reported that they had received some information
    about the program. Those who had heard of DUFB before that day
    indicated learning of the program from a variety of sources. The most
    commonly reported sources included the grocery store (n=58), followed
    by a flyer/brochure (n=12). Of those who had heard about DUFB from an
    unlisted source, the most commonly reported response was information
    gained from a cashier or a Price Chopper employee working in the
    produce section. See Figure 12 for the distribution of responses to
    this question.
    Figure 12. Sources of Information about DUFB
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        When asked if they had used the program to purchase fruits and
    vegetables that day, 48 (46%) responded that they had. Of those who had
    not (n=56, 54%), their reasons for not using the program that day
    include that they did not need produce (n=24), they did not have money
    on their EBT card (n=8), or they just did not understand the program
    (n=6).
        For those SNAP customers who had used the program that day, the
    most commonly reported fruits they purchased that day include apples,
    peaches, and bananas. Additionally, the vegetables most commonly
    reported as purchased that day include tomatoes, onions, and cucumbers.
        SNAP customers who had used the program that day were asked
    questions about the ease of use. A majority of respondents (n=43, 88%)
    indicated that it was very or somewhat easy to identify which fruits
    and vegetables were eligible for DUFB incentives. Only five respondents
    reported it was somewhat difficult while one respondent reported it was
    very difficult (see Figure 13).
    Figure 13. Level of Difficulty to Identify Fruits and Vegetables
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        SNAP participants also were asked about the point of sale and how
    long it took to purchase the fruits and vegetables eligible for the
    DUFB incentives while at the register. As displayed in Figure 14, a
    majority of respondents reported that it took about the amount of time
    that they might have expected. Four individuals responded that it took
    a little longer than they expected but none of the respondents reported
    that it took a lot longer than they expected.
    Figure 14.Time Spent to Purchase Fruits and Vegetables
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Additionally, survey respondents were asked how easy it was to use
    the program overall that day. A majority of respondents indicated it
    was very or somewhat easy to use the program. Two participants
    responded that it was somewhat difficult to use the program but none
    responded that it was very difficult. See Figure 15 below.
    Figure 15. Overall Ease of Program Use
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Most participants responded that the program was clear and there
    were no confusing aspects. Only a few individuals commented on the need
    for more or better produce signage to indicate what produce was
    eligible for the DUFB incentives.
        Of those surveyed DUFB customers who had used the program that day,
    a large portion reported that it was their first time using the program
    (n=29, 63%). Of the respondents who indicated it was not their first
    time using the program, 22% reported that they had used Double SNAP at
    a farmers' market. Eighteen percent (18%) of individuals responded that
    it was their first time using DUFB in a grocery store while 82%
    indicated they had used DUFB during a previous visit.
        Only 15 survey participants gave a response for how many times they
    had used DUFB within the past year. Of these individuals, most reported
    using the program two to three times in the past year.
        Of the 20 SNAP recipients who responded to being asked about how
    participation in DUFB might have affected their eating habits, 12
    participants reported the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables that
    they buy has increased because of the DUFB program. As shown in Figure
    16, surprisingly, one individual indicated a decrease in the amount of
    fruits and vegetables purchased.
    Figure 16. Amount of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Bought
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Additionally, participants were asked if the amount of fresh fruits
    and vegetables that they eat has changed due to the DUFB program. As
    shown in Figure 17, more than \1/2\ of respondents (55%) reported that
    this amount had increased.
    Figure 17. Amount of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Consumed
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Respondents also were asked about their consumption of potato
    chips, candy, and cookies and if participation in DUFB might have
    altered their eating habits of those items. As displayed in Figure 18,
    about 70% of respondents (n=14) indicated their consumption of these
    items had remained the same while 25% (n=5) reported that it had
    decreased.
    Figure 18. Amount of Potato Chips, Candy, and Cookies Consumed
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Importantly, about 50% (n=8) of survey respondents that were asked
    if they had found themselves budgeting differently since participating
    in the DUFB program indicated that they had.
        For those who responded that they were budgeting differently, they
    were then were asked to describe how DUFB is affecting the way they
    budget. Most commented that it helps them save money and helps them
    afford fruits and vegetables more easily. For example, one respondent
    replied, ``I have extra money to spend on fruits and vegetables'' and
    another commented that due to being able to budget for groceries
    differently, ``My kids eat more fruits and veggies.''
        Finally, survey respondents were asked if they had any
    recommendations for improving the DUFB program. Many respondents
    indicated that they did not have any recommendations or they thought
    the program is great as it is. A few individuals suggested developing
    more awareness and better communication about the program, particularly
    from the store cashiers. Others suggested having more local produce
    options. One respondent commented about the need for the DUFB program
    to be in every Price Chopper store throughout the metropolitan area.
    Grocery Store Assessments
        In addition to conducting customer surveys, KUMC research
    assistants completed grocery store evaluation checklists during their
    visits to each of the Price Chopper locations. This checklist served as
    an environmental scan of the store's produce section (see Appendix D).
    The assistants evaluated the quantity and quality of available produce
    and confirmed the presence or absence of locally grown produce signage.
    During the visits, research assistants were asked to evaluate factors
    such as the clarity of DUFB signage, whether there was an adequate
    amount of DUFB signage present, the amount and quality of available
    local produce, the presence or absence of local produce cooking
    demonstrations, and to note the availability of Spanish signage. One
    hundred and seven (n=107) grocery store assessments were completed
    during the pilot.
        Seventy-eight of the assessments (89% out of 88) indicated that the
    clarity of the signage for DUFB produce was unambiguous; it was obvious
    the produce was locally grown. Further, clarity of the signage seemed
    to improve over time. For instance, at the beginning of program
    implementation some signs displayed produce as ``homegrown'' which may
    have caused some confusion for customers as to whether that produce was
    considered locally grown and qualified for the program. Notes from the
    grocery store assessments indicated that on occasion there were
    ``local'' signs posted but it was unclear to what specific produce the
    sign applied. Additionally, some posted signs designated produce as
    local but lacked any DUFB program logo, which may have made it unclear
    to SNAP customers if the produce qualified for the program.
        Some stores had sections in the produce department devoted entirely
    to locally grown fruits and vegetables, which made it easy to identify
    those products that qualified for the DUFB program. Large banners were
    also displayed to advertise the DUFB program. These banners were eye-
    catching and clearly defined the program's target audience as SNAP
    recipients. Further, at times, local produce signage would also include
    where the particular product was grown (e.g., Grown by Twin Co. Family
    Farms in Rich Hill, Missouri). Overall, modifications to the program
    signage improved over time, with greater visibility and clarity as to
    what produce qualified for the program.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        In addition to within-store signage, Mid-America Regional Council
    used several other methods to advertise and promote the program. These
    methods include print advertising, social media posts, and billboards
    (a total of seven) in various locations.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Grocery store assessments also examined whether the amount of
    program signage was adequate. A majority of the assessments (n=71 out
    of 86, 83%) indicated an appropriate amount of signage. Research
    assistants noted an abundance of flyers about the DUFB program
    available to SNAP customers. They also observed that the flyers were
    easily accessible to the customers. Stores placed DUFB information
    tables near the produce section, which contained flyers that customers
    could take with them. Occasionally, store employees were stationed at
    the tables so that they could explain how the program worked to
    incoming customers.
        The evaluation checklist also included questions about the locally
    grown produce that was available. Signs and flyers were available at
    the store that listed produce as ``LOCAL THIS WEEK''. Research
    assistants compared the actual amount of locally grown fruits and
    vegetables available in the produce department to this listing. The
    listing of local fruits and vegetables varied from visit to visit as
    the season progressed. Approximately 72% (n=57 out of 79) of grocery
    store evaluations indicated the amount of local produce was stocked
    adequately. However, on several occasions only a limited number of the
    listed items could be found. For instance, blackberries were often
    included on the local produce listing but were unable to be located by
    the research assistants.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Research assistants rated the quality of the local produce as
    ``good'' consistently. Approximately 92% of assessments (n=76 out of
    83) indicated that the quality of the local produce on the day of
    assessment was fresh and in good visible condition.
        Research assistants were also asked to take note of other factors,
    such as the presence of cooking demonstrations and the availability of
    Spanish language signage. Although cooking demonstrations did not take
    place during a majority of the occasions that research assistants were
    present at the stores (91%, n=93 out of 102), there were often local
    produce samples available to customers for taste-tests (such as
    tomatoes or cantaloupes). Finally, on only approximately \1/3\ (n=36
    out of 102, 35%) of assessments, research assistants indicated Spanish
    language signage was available at the store. However, program flyers
    and local produce listings included information in both English and
    Spanish.
    Price Chopper Employee Interviews
        Interviews with Price Chopper employees were conducted to gain
    feedback about facilitators and challenges to the process of
    implementing the DUFB program. Standardized guides were used to
    complete interviews with employees of the four participating Price
    Chopper stores. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed
    verbatim, and analyzed to discover themes across the responses to each
    open-ended question.
        Interviewed employees included cashiers and store directors, as
    well as other employees in roles such as service manager and produce
    manager.
    Cashiers
        Fifty-two cashiers (n=52) were interviewed about their experiences
    with the DUFB program. Of the four participating locations, 18
    interviews were conducted at Roeland Park, ten at Blue Ridge, 19 at
    Grandview, and five at the State Avenue location. The interview
    instrument utilized with cashiers can be found in Appendix E.
    Length of Time Employed as a Cashier
        The amount of time the cashiers had been working for Price Chopper
    was averaged in years. Overall, the mean number of years working at a
    particular store was approximately 4.3 years across all four stores.
    Cashiers interviewed at Roeland Park reported working for an average of
    3.1 years, Blue Ridge 6.4 years, Grandview 4.2 years, and KCK 3.8
    years.
    Ease of DUFB Implementation
        When asked to rate how easy the DUFB program was to implement,
    using a Likert scale from 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very easy), the
    majority of cashiers (n=37, 72%) reported it was either easy or very
    easy to implement. As displayed in Figure 19, 11 cashiers (21%)
    indicated it was neither easy nor difficult to implement while four
    cashiers stated DUFB was difficult or very difficult to implement.
    Figure 19. Ease of Program Implementation According to Cashiers
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Cashiers who indicated it was difficult or very difficult to
    implement DUFB also reported they received no formal training. One
    cashier stated, ``I learned by word of mouth. I did not have
    training.'' Another cashier who rated the ease of DUFB implementation
    as difficult still did not understand the program fully when she
    stated, ``. . . the cash back thing was confusing.'' While another
    cashier struggled initially with implementation stating, ``I really
    didn't understand it [DUFB] was only for food stamps, but now I get it.
    Just getting used to it.''
    Factors Affecting Ease of Implementation
        Cashiers were asked to share what was easy or difficult about
    implementing the DUFB program. Most cashiers reported the
    implementation of the DUFB program was straightforward. They described
    several aspects of the process, which made DUFB easy to carry out.
    First, the cashiers emphasized the importance of having specific codes
    to enter into the register to identify the local foods eligible to earn
    incentives. One cashier's statement captured the sentiments of others
    when she stated, ``. . . just having the code we have to type for it
    [DUFB] makes it really easy.''
        Second, many cashiers stated that a listing of locally grown items
    that are eligible for DUFB made the transaction process easier, too.
    This listing helped cashiers know that the items needed to be keyed in
    as locally grown and food bucks would be earned. In contrast, a few
    cashiers at one store stated they had difficulty identifying what
    produce was locally grown and generated DUFB incentives. As one cashier
    shared, ``I think the most difficult part for a cashier is just the
    knowledge of what was local and what wasn't.''
        Many cashiers indicated the use of technology facilitated the
    earning and redemption process. For example, the auto-generated
    computer screen popup allowed the cashiers to press ``acknowledge'' on
    their registers and the customer was able to redeem food bucks easily.
    As a cashier stated, ``the easy part is it's just a code to put in.''
    Another cashier explained the ease of implementation when she stated,
    ``I mean it's just simple because all it is, once you buy the local,
    then you match with any kind as long as you have the EBT card. It's
    just plain and simple. The computer tells you the rest.''
        Others stated the process was made easier by hands-on training. One
    cashier summarized the points of view of other cashiers about the ease
    of implementation when supplemental training was given. She stated, ``.
     it was easy `cause [sic] they explained the program to us . . .
    kind of went over with us. They gave us the information and what codes
    we use and like told us how to actually do it on the registers.''
        Several other cashiers mentioned that there were difficulties with
    implementation of DUFB. They stated most problems occurred at the
    beginning of adopting the program into the stores. Many cashiers found
    the amount of information shared during the training session to be
    overwhelming. They felt ``trying to understand everything at the
    beginning'' with only one training session made implementing the
    program difficult. However, over time, the cashiers indicated the
    program was easier to implement.
        Many cashiers shared that the most difficult part of the program
    was getting the SNAP customer to understand the process. Several
    cashiers reacted in the same manner, stating ``. . . but the difficult
    part was like sometimes explaining what it [DUFB] was . . . it's when
    you try to explain it to customers. The customers don't get it. So I
    have to keep trying to explain it.'' Similarly, another cashier stated,
    `` trying to explain that the first time they have to buy local
    and second time they can buy anything they want to. Learning how to
    explain it to customers.'' Other cashiers shared examples of how they
    struggled to explain the DUFB process to SNAP customers. They stressed
    the need for additional help for the customer to understand how the
    program works. As one cashier lamented, ``even though we have posters
    up and brochures, we have people out there. they still didn't know what
    we were talking about.''
    Extra Time To Process a DUFB Transaction
        Cashiers were asked how much extra time a DUFB transaction demanded
    compared to a regular, non-DUFB transaction. As displayed in Figure 20,
    over 70% of respondents (n=37) reported that a DUFB transaction
    required either the same amount of time or less than 1 minute extra
    compared to a usual transaction. One-fourth of cashiers (25%, n=13)
    thought it took over 1 minute more to complete a DUFB transaction
    compared to a regular transaction.
        Two of the cashiers were not sure if a DUFB transaction took less
    or more time compared to a typical transaction.
    Figure 20. Length of Time to Complete DUFB Transaction
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Number of DUFB Transactions Processed
        Cashiers were asked to estimate how many DUFB transactions they
    have processed since the pilot program began in their particular store.
    Responses varied considerably from less than five transactions to more
    than 15 per day four times per week. The average number of transactions
    across the four stores was 118. At the Grandview store, which had the
    most SNAP transactions of the pilot stores, cashiers reported an
    average of 285 transactions that were processed since the DUFB program
    initially began in their store.
    Readiness To Implement DUFB After Training
        Cashiers were asked to think about the training they received to
    work on DUFB and then rate how ready they were to work on the program,
    using a scale from 1 (not being ready at all) to 4 (being very ready).
    As displayed in Figure 21, the majority of cashiers (n=40, 77%)
    reported they felt very or quite ready after the training.
    Figure 21. Cashier Readiness after Training
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Factors Affecting Readiness To Implement DUFB
        When cashiers were asked why they thought they were ready or not
    ready to implement the DUFB program after training, most cashiers
    indicated the extent of training was sufficient to execute the program
    effectively. Many comments about the readiness to implement the program
    were similar. For example, comments shared included,

              ``. . . the training covered everything you needed to know
            going into it.''
              ``. . . it [the training] couldn't be more direct than
            that.''
              ``. . . it's such an easy program to run.''
              ``. . . it's an easy process.''
              ``It's just kind of self-explanatory.''
              ``The training was sufficient.''
              ``Well, I felt I was ready because they explained it.''

        Others felt the training was sufficient but expressed the need to
    ``get the hang of it.'' They shared that DUFB was similar to any other
    new program to be implemented, ``it's just a matter of getting used to
    it.'' Cashiers who indicated they were not at all ready or not ready to
    implement DUFB did not receive formal training. They reported the only
    training they received was ``by word of mouth.'' As one cashier
    described, ``it was just kind of word of mouth kind of thing. There
    were several weeks that went by before I knew that I was supposed to
    hit acknowledge.'' Another stated, ``I learned from asking other
    cashiers what to do next,'' while another cashier admitted, ``I'm gonna
    be completely honest. I didn't even get the training. I missed that
    day. I came into work the day afterward and just kind of picked up on
    it.'' Additionally, two individuals who stated they were not ready to
    implement DUFB also continued not to be clear about eligibility, asking
    the interviewer, ``is it only for food stamp customers?'' and sharing
    the comment, ``I owed the customer cash back.''
    DUFB Appreciation
        When interviewers asked the cashiers to state what they like or
    appreciate about the DUFB program, the overwhelming response was that
    it helps SNAP customers eat healthier. Many similar comments, such as
    ``it [DUFB] goes toward helping families so that they eat healthy . .
    '' and, ``. . . it gives them an opportunity to buy more healthier
    stuff . . . easier for them to buy because it gets expensive for fruits
    and vegetables.'' Others stressed how they appreciated helping children
    of low income families eat healthier through the DUFB program, noting,
    ``a lot of fruits and vegetables are very, very important in a child's
    meal'' and, ``. . . they're trying to promote healthy eating. We see a
    lot of customers that buy just junk food, preprocessed food, not the
    healthiest choice for their kids. And now you're seeing a little bit
    more fruits and veggies.'' Another cashier responded, ``I feel they eat
    a little more healthier. And for the kids, too. So, I think it's a
    great program.''
        Additionally, many cashiers expressed how much they appreciated how
    DUFB helps SNAP customers save money. Many stated how the program helps
    families, ``get more money back to use for any produce, not just
    local.'' Others stressed how they really like the program because
    ``they [the SNAP customers] can stretch that dollar with DUFB.'' One
    particular cashier communicated their appreciation because ``. . . it
    helps most of our elderly customers that we have because sometimes they
    don't get as much on their EBT . . . And I like the fact that I can go
    and help them out.''
        Other cashiers appreciated how the DUFB program supports local
    farmers. As one cashier summarized these feelings, ``. . . it's good
    for local farmers.'' Not only did they value how DUFB benefits local
    farmers but they also appreciated how the program supports the economy
    and increases Price Choppers' business. The cashiers described how the
    entire process benefited more than just the SNAP customer. As one
    cashier captured the opinions of others, ``. . . people come in and
    they bring in a lot of money and they come back in. It increases our
    profits. And helps guarantee my job.''
    Suggestions To Improve the Double Up Food Bucks Program
        Cashiers were asked for suggestions to improve the DUFB program.
    Most recommendations fell into three categories: (1) to increase
    customer awareness and knowledge of the program, (2) to expand the
    program to include all fruits and vegetables, and (3) to expand the
    eligibility of the program to include non-SNAP customers.
        Many cashiers suggested additional training to help the customer
    understand how the program works. They recommended the need to seek
    different ways to explain the program to SNAP customers because the
    current strategies were not working well and customers continue to be
    confused and had misperceptions about the DUFB program. The cashiers
    indicated that many of their customers still did not understand how to
    take part in the program. They gave several examples of confusion by
    SNAP customers, sharing ``. . . they think they have to do like
    separate transactions for Double Up Bucks and then for their regular
    food.'' and ``they don't really know what they are entitled to . . .''
    Moreover, other cashiers mentioned it would be helpful to teach
    customers how to use the produce. They stressed the importance of
    providing examples of different ways to prepare the locally grown
    produce. Similarly, one cashier encouraged food demonstrations to
    improve the DUFB program, ``. . . if we had in-house demos . . . people
    don't know how to use the squash. If we had more demos to get that
    produce out in front.''
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Several cashiers recommended expansion of the program to include a
    larger variety of local items. They felt more individuals would
    participate in the program if there were more options. Further, other
    cashiers wanted the DUFB program to allow all fruits and vegetables,
    not just locally grown ones. As a cashier stated, ``I don't think it
    should have to be locally grown produce at first. . . . I think it
    should be all the produce because people buy a lot of different
    varieties. If they are more into the exotic type of foods, they won't
    get the local points.'' Another stated, ``if they had more options
    [larger variety of fruits and vegetables], they would be more likely to
    use the program.''
        Many cashiers recommended the program expand to include those who
    are not eligible for SNAP benefits. Several cashiers thought it was
    ``unfair'' to those who were struggling financially but not SNAP-
    eligible. Fairness to others was a common theme among cashiers with one
    stating this shared opinion, ``I think it would be a good idea to be
    fair to let everybody have access to that [DUFB]. I don't have EBT. It
    would sure help me out a lot. I've even had a couple of customers ask
    me why they can't have it. Because they ask about it and they don't
    think it's fair.'' Similarly, another cashier recommended, ``. . . some
    type of way to help give those customers something, so it's not just
    like you have to be on EBT to get it.'' Another cashier stated,
    ``Honestly, I would like it [DUFB] to be given to everyone'' while yet
    another remarked, ``I think it should be for everybody, not just people
    that are on food stamps.''
    Store Directors
        Three store director interviews were completed. One store director
    represented two of the participating Double Up Food Bucks locations
    (i.e., Roeland Park and State Avenue). The results of the interviews
    with the store directors are presented below for each question asked.
    The interview instrument utilized with store directors can be found in
    Appendix F.
    Most Useful Aspect of DUFB Startup
        When asked to think back to when DUFB was first implemented at
    their store and to identify what was most useful to them for starting
    the program, store directors emphasized the importance of having one-
    on-one conversations with employees and customers. One director
    commented that the directors of the four stores who were rolling out
    the DUFB program met as a group and walked through the program at the
    Roeland Park grocery store, which was the site that launched the
    program ahead of the other locations. One store director commented that
    it was helpful to see how the Roeland Park store was implementing the
    program and by doing so, it made the implementation of the program at
    his store much simpler.
    Additional Supports Needed
        When asked what would make the program easier to implement, two
    store directors indicated they did not require additional help to
    execute the DUFB program fully. Although the directors did not report
    needing additional help, in-store activities were organized by the
    directors to support the DUFB program. For example, the service manager
    called a storewide meeting to discuss the program and answer employee
    questions to supplement the DUFB training session.
        Additionally, another store director met with each employee
    individually to ensure employees understood the program completely. At
    a different store location, other activities were noted as influential
    in supporting DUFB. The store manager indicated they placed a large
    sign in the produce section about DUFB and positioned an individual
    near the front of the store to explain the program to incoming
    customers to support the DUFB program. One store director commented
    that in the beginning of the pilot, it took time to get the word out
    about DUFB and make certain store staff understood how the program
    works. One store director did comment that the redemption procedure for
    DUFB incentives was ``a little bit confusing at first'' and would
    welcome activities to bolster the understanding of how this process
    works.
    Adequacy of Training for Cashiers and Produce Department Staff
        Collectively, the store directors reported the training for
    cashiers and produce department staff was adequate. One director
    commented, however, that the DUFB training was a ``little repetitious
    at first.'' According to another store director, the training for the
    produce department staff was adequate as it was ``pretty easy and self-
    explanatory.'' That same director reported the program might have been
    a little more challenging at first for cashiers because they did not
    handle many local and/or organic produce typically but as time passed,
    the cashiers became acclimated to the process.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Additional Training for Staff
        When the store directors were asked if they provided additional
    DUFB training, one store director reported no additional training was
    conducted while the other two store directors provided supplementary
    training to their staff. Because one store had new employees coming on
    board frequently during the pilot, the director indicated training was
    an ongoing process to make certain employees were informed about DUFB.
    The other store director provided additional one-on-one training with
    their grocery store staff to enhance the employees' understanding of
    the DUFB process. This store director commented that the implementation
    process ``would have gone better with a little more additional
    training.''
    Recommendations for Training Enhancement
        Although one store director indicated the DUFB program was ``a
    pretty easy program to implement and understand'' and did not have
    suggestions, other store directors had recommendations to enhance the
    training of employees. One recommendation for enhancement of the DUFB
    training was to develop a training video that explains in detail
    important aspects of the program. A store director commented that it is
    critical for the grocery store team to understand how and why they are
    implementing the program and providing visual aids might be very
    helpful in supporting this effort. Another store director responded
    that reviewing with employees what local produce is stocked within the
    store might be very beneficial. In this manner, the employees can
    identify local produce easily and in turn, could facilitate the
    transaction process for cashiers.
    Ease of Processing DUFB By Cashiers At Point of Sale
        When asked to think about the point of sale--when customers get or
    use their DUFB cards/points with cashiers--and the level of difficulty
    for cashiers to process DUFB, two store directors reported that it was
    challenging at first, particularly the first week or 2 of
    implementation. However, they reported it became easier as the cashiers
    adjusted to the process. One director commented that the redemption
    process was the cashiers' most challenging part of the program. A major
    obstacle that affected the process at this store was due to a computer
    issue. For example, if the customer had previously earned DUFB points
    and returned later to buy produce, then the cashier would be prompted
    on the screen to acknowledge if earned points were to be used for the
    current produce purchases. Then, if the cashier pressed the acknowledge
    key and the customer had earned more points than they were redeeming
    that day, then the transaction statement would indicate the customer
    was owed money back. To exacerbate the computer issue further, this
    store serves a large Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) population,
    which also affected the DUFB purchasing process. Many of these
    customers purchased local produce with their WIC vouchers, which led to
    confusion by the cashiers. Due to the computer issue, the cashiers'
    tills would not reconcile with the appropriate balance. The cashiers
    were then placed in an uncomfortable position because they wanted their
    tills not to have variances.
    Feedback from Cashiers About Processing DUFB
        All store directors interviewed indicated cashiers at their store
    have responded positively to the program. They reported not hearing any
    negativity towards the DUFB program. The store directors reported the
    DUFB program is met with very positive feeling from the cashiers. For
    example, one store director commented the cashiers are positive about
    the program because they can see how it benefits the SNAP customer and
    increases the business of their grocery store. As a result, the
    cashiers feel the program helps to promote their job security.
    Lessons Learned Or Recommendations for Improving Process
        When asked about any lessons learned or recommendations for making
    the DUFB process better, one store director responded it is beneficial
    for the cashiers to ask the customer the extent of their knowledge
    about the DUFB program or at least mention the program at the beginning
    of the transaction when they first notice the customer is using an EBT
    card. Another store director commented about the importance of ``just
    learning the experience of going through it with the customer.'' Store
    directors mentioned that the lessons learned are to understand the
    importance of ``on-the-job experience'' and ``cashiers processing many
    transactions until it becomes routine,'' which are necessary components
    to the process.
    Produce Signage for DUFB-Eligible Items
        Store directors were asked to think about the signage in their
    stores for DUFB-eligible produce and to indicate how well the produce
    signs work for DUFB. In response, each of the store directors indicated
    they thought the produce signs worked well for the program. One
    described the signage at their store as an ``evolution.'' He explained
    how they upgraded the signs across the pilot program period to improve
    how the program was described. Although he mentioned the signs included
    a lot of information, providing cues that the SNAP customer will
    recognize immediately is helpful in promoting DUFB-eligible produce.
    Feedback from Produce Managers About DUFB Signage
        When asked if store directors had heard any feedback from produce
    managers about how well the DUFB signs worked, the store directors
    reported receiving very few comments from the produce managers about
    signage. They indicated, however, that all of the produce managers were
    supportive of the DUFB program. One store director stated that the
    produce manager would only provide feedback if there were complaints or
    if the produce manager felt the signage was not working well. Because
    he had not received any complaints or remarks about signage from the
    produce manager, he believed all was working well. Another store
    director mentioned that the signage was fine. However, he mentioned the
    availability of some of the local items that were advertised was
    inconsistent and their store had to adjust accordingly.
    Lessons Learned Or Recommendations for Produce Signage
        Store directors were asked about lessons learned or recommendations
    to improve produce signage. All store directors stated the signs worked
    well. One store director commented that ``bigger is better when it
    comes to the signs'' because the store needs to grab the SNAP
    customers' attention. He commented, for example, that at the beginning
    of the pilot period, the signs might not have been as effective because
    they were too small and blended in with the surroundings.
    Additional Marketing Strategies To Promote DUFB
        Interviewers shared with the store directors that Fair Food Network
    and Mid-America Regional Council used many different strategies to
    communicate and market DUFB to customers and then asked if any
    additional marketing strategies were used to promote DUFB to their
    customers. The store directors mentioned different strategies to
    promote the program. One strategy was to talk directly with customers,
    usually at the point of sale, and let them know the benefits of the
    program.

              ``One thing we did . . . was to tell the customer at the
            checkout point of sale that this was a great way to spread out
            their ability to have fresh fruits and vegetables on their
            table every week instead of just a one-time purchase per month.
            And that they could actually save, you can accumulate and save
            the benefit for later.''

        Another strategy included placing tables near their produce section
    that contained information about the DUFB program to help inform SNAP
    customers.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Effective Strategies
        When asked what strategies to promote the DUFB program were most
    effective, the store directors reported the one-on-one interaction with
    the customers, particularly having cashiers explain the program, was by
    far the most effective strategy. One challenge, however, was to make
    certain all cashiers were explaining the program properly at the point
    of sale.
    Experience With Volunteers and Demonstrations
        When asked to describe their experience with volunteers and store
    demonstrations, only one store director reported the presence of
    cooking/food demonstrations. He described the demonstrations as
    excellent and reported the way in which individuals who led the
    demonstrations explained the DUFB program to customers was excellent,
    too. He was impressed by how much detail was shared with customers
    about the DUFB program during the demonstrations. The two other store
    directors commented that they did not have cooking demonstrations but
    did have other type of demonstrations, such as samples of local
    produce. The store directors stated that the individuals who led the
    demonstrations were polite and pleasant. Additionally, one store
    director commented the presence of the University of Kansas Medical
    Center students, who were surveying at the store and were able to
    explain the program in-depth to the customers they talked to, was an
    effective strategy to increase the understanding of the DUFB program.
    Lessons Learned Or Recommendations for Marketing the Program
        The interviewers asked the store directors if they had any lessons
    learned or recommendations for marketing the DUFB program to customers.
    One store director commented that discussing the program one-on-one
    with the customers and spreading information about the program by word
    of mouth is the best marketing strategy. Another store director
    described the lessons learned about how to market the program in this
    manner:

              ``I would have to say that the important thing to do, is that
            you have to be aggressive at the front end of it. You can't
            slide into it gradually and I'm talking about from a knowledge
            standpoint. Everybody has to be on the same page when you're
            starting it. You can't ramp up speed as you go because what
            that means is that you've got people out there that can't
            explain the program. And what we saw or experienced was that
            the program started off slowly but that it gained strength
            steadily through the year and you want that to happen. But it
            can't happen if you don't have people that are willing to
            explain it and know what they're talking about.''
    Feedback from Customers About DUFB
        Interviewers asked store directors to share what they have heard
    from SNAP customers about DUFB. The store directors shared that the
    feedback from customers about the program has been positive. As
    reported by one store director, the customers enjoy the ability to put
    healthier foods on the table. Additionally, the customers appreciate
    the flexibility of being able to redeem their rewards across time and
    the freedom to choose when to use their incentive dollars. However,
    this same store director also commented that numerous SNAP customers
    are not knowledgeable about how to prepare many of the local fruits and
    vegetables. He suggested it would be beneficial to include more
    education on the preparation of these items. Another store director
    shared what customers have communicated about DUFB:

              ``The customers like it. Many of them now understand the
            program so they look forward to using their food bucks and
            actually plan their buying around the fact that they're earning
            money. It's part of their budget now.''
    Change in Purchasing Behaviors By Customers
        When asked if the store directors have heard from any customers
    that DUFB changed their purchasing behaviors, two store directors
    responded affirmatively. One director stated customers are more willing
    to try new fruits and vegetables, which they had not consumed
    previously. Another director reported hearing how customers are
    budgeting differently so that they can purchase additional fruits and
    vegetables with their earned incentives.
    Changes in Your Customer Base
        The interviewers asked the store directors if their stores have
    experienced any changes in customer base because of DUFB. In response
    to this question, one store director commented that it was too
    difficult to know because the store was being remodeled during the same
    months DUFB was being piloted. Another store director reported he has
    noticed more customers ask for organic or local produce. Finally,
    another store director commented:

              ``It would be hard to know [about changes to customer base] .
            . . But what it does for us, because we're the only store or
            company that's doing this in Kansas City, at least at the
            current time, it makes that customer a dedicated customer. In
            other words, they're going to come back because of that so that
            strengthens our customer base. And over time, that should
            continue to happen.''
    Locally Grown Produce Purchased By Stores
        Interviewers asked store directors if they believed their stores
    purchased more locally grown produce because of the presence of the
    DUFB program. All store directors indicated they saw an increase in
    purchases of locally grown produce by their store. One director
    commented that DUFB ``pushed'' sales of local produce. Another store
    director reported that he was not definite about overall sale increases
    but was positive about the store purchasing additional quantities of
    specific locally grown items.
    Greater Focus on Locally Grown Produce
        When asked if they felt their produce department had a greater
    focus on locally grown produce because of the DUFB program, the store
    directors all responded affirmatively. Additionally, the store
    directors mentioned that displays with information about DUFB and
    tables featuring locally grown produce contributed to the focus on
    local fruits and vegetables. One store director stated that they had
    promoted locally grown produce in the past but the DUFB program was
    more effective.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Unexpected Benefits
        The interviewers asked store directors if there were any unexpected
    benefits from having DUFB at their stores. Two directors did not
    believe any unexpected benefits emerged from their participation in the
    DUFB program. However, another store director commented that the
    presence of the DUFB program provided an opportunity to have a dialogue
    between the customer and cashier or produce team member. This
    opportunity for dialogue was beneficial because it meant the customers
    were placing trust in the Price Chopper employees to explain about
    locally grown items. It also provided an opportunity for the employees
    to help customers with selecting quality produce and deciding upon what
    and how much to purchase. Overall, he thought having that interaction
    was an unexpected positive benefit, deriving from the DUFB program.
    Challenges To Implementing DUFB
        Store directors reported implementation challenges that were out of
    their control, such as computer issues. For example, one store director
    reported that the Double Up points were not visible on the customers'
    receipt. Customers wanted to be able to view the amount earned on the
    locally grown produce purchases. The main challenge to another store
    director was the struggle to increase the SNAP customer's understanding
    of the DUFB program. He commented that many SNAP customers still do not
    understand the process and the benefits of the program.
    Advice to Other Grocery Stores
        When interviewers inquired about what advice they would give to
    other grocery stores planning to implement a similar program, store
    directors stressed the importance of education and communication about
    the DUFB program. They emphasized communication should occur in
    parallel with the customers and the grocery store team. For example,
    one store director emphasized how important it was to avoid the
    situation where the customer becomes excited about being able to use
    the DUFB program only to have store employees unable to answer
    questions about the program correctly. He also called attention to
    making certain the SNAP customer understands the program fully,
    including how participation involves long-term benefits.
    Improvements Or Recommendations
        Interviewers asked the store directors to share ideas about
    improvements or recommendations for the DUFB program. Store directors
    did not share any major recommendations to improve the program. One
    director commented that word of mouth was very important for building
    the DUFB program. He stressed the importance of finding ways to enhance
    this mode of communication. Another store director recommended that the
    Price Chopper stores acquire a greater variety of locally grown
    produce, which will help promote the DUFB program.
    Satisfaction With the Store's Participation
        Overall, the store directors expressed satisfaction with their
    store's participation in the program. As commented by one store
    director:

              ``Very satisfied because I think it's a plus for the company.
            It's a plus for the customers to eat healthier. I just really
            don't see any negatives with the program at all.''

        Another director indicated his store has had a positive experience
    with the DUFB program. Further, he welcomed the opportunity to see the
    program continue and expand into other Price Chopper stores.
    Implement DUFB Again
        When the store directors were asked if they had it to do over
    again, would they implement DUFB at their grocery store, all store
    directors responded affirmatively. The directors stated they would
    definitely agree to implement the program again at their store.
    Transaction Data
        Transaction data from the four Price Chopper locations
    participating in the Double Up Food Bucks pilot program was used to
    analyze the amount of money SNAP users had earned with DUFB as well as
    the amount that had been redeemed. Additionally, the data was used to
    examine which local products were most commonly being bought with the
    program and on which products DUFB users were spending their earned
    rewards. The Roeland Park store launched DUFB on June 11th while the
    remaining three stores launched DUFB on July 1st. Transaction data
    provided by Price Chopper was used to look at DUFB program usage from
    June through December 2015.
        From the launch of the program through the end of 2015, Price
    Chopper customers earned approximately $42,300 across the four stores
    using the DUFB program. As displayed in Figure 22, August was the
    highest-earning month with a total of nearly $12,000 earned across the
    four stores.
    Figure 22. DUFB Earned

        Through the end of 2015, DUFB customers had redeemed a total of
    nearly $26,000 on produce using the program. September had the highest
    total redemption of $5,800 (see Figure 23).
    Figure 23. DUFB Redeemed

        The total redemption rate (i.e., percentage of earned DUFB rewards
    that had been redeemed) as of December 2015 across the four stores was
    approximately 61%.
        Transaction data was also used to examine what types of produce
    participants were using the program to purchase. Some of the top local
    products customers were purchasing to earn rewards include green bell
    peppers, beefsteak tomatoes, watermelon, cabbage, and cucumbers. Table
    4 shows total amounts of these local products purchased by DUFB
    customers across the four stores.

                 Table 4. Top Local Products Purchased with DUFB
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Product                            DUFB Earned
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Green bell peppers                                $5,610
         Beefsteak tomatoes                                $5,210
                 Watermelon                                $5,140
                    Cabbage                                $4,350
                  Cucumbers                                $3,230
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Some of the top produce items customers were using their earned
    rewards to purchase include russet potatoes, iceberg/shredded lettuce,
    watermelon, red grapes, and bananas. Table 5 shows the amount redeemed
    on these five products.

                Table 5. Top Products Purchased with DUFB Rewards
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Product                            DUFB Earned
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Russet potatoes                                $1,780
    Iceberg/shredded lettuce                               $1,630
                 Watermelon                                $1,090
                 Red grapes                                $1,050
                    Bananas                                  $960
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The number of unduplicated customers that participated in the
    program through the end of 2015 equals over 8,600 individuals across
    all four participating stores. Although a majority of DUFB participants
    only utilized the program at one store, some participants used the
    program at two or three different locations.
        Price Chopper also shared data about overall sales of local produce
    for their pilot stores, which displayed an increase after DUFB
    implementation. From June-December of 2014 to June-December of 2015, a
    12% increase in units/pounds of local produce sold was seen across the
    four pilot stores. Additionally, a 4% increase in sales of local
    produce (in dollars) was seen across the four stores. Although this
    number varies from units sold, it was indicated that these local
    products were sold at a lower retail price. Thus, Price Chopper
    customers were purchasing more local produce but paying less for these
    products.
    Recommendations
    Recommendations To Enhance Implementation
        Based on surveys, interviews, environmental scans, and transaction
    data, the following are recommendations to enhance implementation of
    the DUFB program in grocery stores.

       Development of a formal, standardized training session
            enhanced with video, PowerPoint slides or other visual aids
            that are available to all store employees. Training should be
            made available to all new employees before they are positioned
            at the registers.

       A refresher course should be offered for those employees who
            struggle to understand the program. ``Hands-on'' training at
            the register should take place to help cashiers through the
            entire process, from the beginning of a SNAP transaction to the
            end when cashiers share with customers the amount of incentives
            earned. Continue to have one-on-one conversations with
            employees and customers to answer questions and ensure
            employees understand the program completely.

       A system should be in place at each participating store to
            make certain all cashiers have completed training and
            understand how to implement the DUFB program correctly.

       A detailed script should be made available to all employees
            that addresses frequently asked questions about DUFB.

       A listing of locally grown fruits and vegetables eligible
            for DUFB at each register, which is updated as needed, should
            be easily accessible to the cashiers so that they know what
            locally grown produce is available at any given time.

       Store directors considering adopting the DUFB program should
            be invited to visit stores that have implemented the program.

    Suggestions To Improve, Maintain, and Replicate the DUFB Program
        The following suggestions aim to provide guidance for future
    grocery stores that choose to implement the program, based on what was
    found to have worked well during the pilot program and what were
    reported as areas that could use improvement.

       Increase customer awareness and knowledge of the program.

         Place tables near the produce section that provide
                information about DUFB and feature locally grown produce.

         Encourage cashiers to explain the program to SNAP
                customers.

         Provide samples of locally grown produce for taste-
                testing.

         Provide examples of how to prepare various locally
                grown fruits and vegetables.

       Expand the program to include additional quantities and
            wider variety of fruits and vegetables.

         Make certain fruits and vegetables advertised on the
                listing of locally grown produce are on the shelves.

         Seek other locally grown fruits and vegetables,
                typically not offered at grocery stores.

       Expand the eligibility of the program to include non-SNAP
            customers.

         Consider offering incentives for those who are
                struggling financially but who are not eligible for SNAP
                benefits.
    Discussion
        Double Up Food Bucks is a program designed to increase access to
    and affordability of fresh fruits and vegetables for beneficiaries of
    the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The DUFB program
    was launched at four Balls Price Chopper locations in the Kansas City
    metropolitan area in the summer of 2015. During the summer and fall of
    2015, a research team at the University of Kansas Medical Center
    conducted a mixed-methods evaluation to assess the program's impact as
    well as benefits and challenges to the program. Overall, feedback
    gained about the program was positive and supportive.
        Survey data gathered from Price Chopper customers shows that non-
    SNAP participants are supportive of the program and believe it allows
    SNAP participants to save money while eating healthier. Another benefit
    non-SNAP users see in the program is supporting local farmers. SNAP
    participants who had not used the program mainly reported their lack of
    knowledge about the program as their reason for not participating. A
    majority of SNAP beneficiaries reported they were likely to use the
    program during their next visit to the store. SNAP participants who had
    used DUFB reported that the program was easy for them to use, helped
    increase their fruit and vegetable intake, and was helping them save
    money.
        Interviews conducted with Price Chopper employees also displayed
    positive feedback. Employees were supportive of the program and enjoyed
    the fact that it was able to help a portion of their customers to eat
    healthier and save money. Additionally, they reported that the program
    was easy to use, after an initial adjustment period, and that using the
    program did not require additional time to process transactions. The
    store directors all agreed that they were satisfied with DUFB and would
    choose to implement the program again.
        Transaction data from DUFB show that, as of December 2015, DUFB
    customers had earned a total of $42,000 and redeemed a total of $26,000
    across the four stores using the program. This equates to a redemption
    rate of approximately 61%. Popular products purchased using the program
    include bell peppers, tomatoes, watermelon, and potatoes. Overall, an
    increase in sales of local produce was seen across the pilot stores.
        Recommendations for improving the program focus on increased
    communication and education about the program, both for customers and
    for grocery store employees. Having a formal, standardized training for
    employees would be beneficial for ensuring all employees have a good
    understanding of the program. Additionally, introducing an education
    component about preparation of local produce would be helpful for those
    customers who may struggle knowing how to prepare certain items.
    Summary
        Results from this evaluation demonstrate that implementation of the
    DUFB program is feasible and replicable in grocery stores. Non-SNAP
    customers were supportive of the program and SNAP customers who hadn't
    used DUFB reported they were likely to utilize the program in the
    future. Additionally, DUFB participants reported the program was easy
    to use and helped them save money while eating healthier. Further, DUFB
    participants showed a high redemption rate of their earned rewards.
    Grocery store employees reported positive experiences with implementing
    the program. Finally, an increase in local produce sold was seen across
    the four pilot stores.
    Appendices
    Appendix A: Survey for Non-SNAP Customers
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Appendix B: Survey for SNAP Customers Not Using DUFB
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Appendix C: Survey for SNAP Customers Using DUFB
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Appendix D: Grocery Store Assessment
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Appendix E: Cashier Interview Instrument
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Appendix F: Store Director Interview Instrument
        As you may know, Double Up Food Bucks is being piloted at grocery
    stores in the Kansas City metropolitan area. We'd like to understand
    from your perspective, what has been working well with Double Up Food
    Bucks, what hasn't been working well, and how you would improve the
    program. This interview will take about 20-25 minutes and is
    confidential--your answers will be compiled with those from other
    managers across the pilot grocery stores. Do you have any questions
    before we start?
        Please think back to when you first implemented Double Up Food
    Bucks in your store.

      1.  Please think about the training you received to start up DUFB in
                your store.

           What was most useful for starting DUFB?

           Were there additional supports that you wish you had
                received to imple-
                  ment the DUFB program?

      2.  When you think about the training for cashiers and produce
                department staff . . .

           Was the training adequate?

           Did you provide additional training for your staff?

           What recommendations do you have for enhancing the
                training?

        Please think about the point of sale--when customers get or use
    their DUFB cards/points with cashiers . . .

      3.  From your perspective, how easy or challenging was it for
                cashiers to process DUFB?

           What feedback, if any, have you heard from cashiers
                about processing
                  DUFB?

           Do you have any lessons learned or recommendations for
                making that proc-
                  ess better?

        Please think about the signage in the store of DUFB-eligible
    produce .

      4.  From your perspective, how well did the produce signs work for
                DUFB?

           What feedback, if any, have you heard from produce
                managers about the
                  sign work?

           Do you have any lessons learned or recommendations for
                produce
                  signage?

      5.  Fair Food Network and Mid-America Regional Council used a lot of
                different strategies to communicate and market DUFB to
                customers.

           Did you use any additional marketing strategies to
                promote DUFB to
                  your customers?

           What strategies do you feel were most and least
                effective and why?

      6.  Please describe your experience with the volunteers and/or demos.

      7.  Overall, do you have any lessons learned or recommendations for
                marketing the program to customers?

        When you think about your customers . . .

      8.  What feedback have you been hearing from customers about DUFB?

      9.  Have you heard from any customers that DUFB changed their
                purchasing behaviors? If so, how?

        Other outcomes

      10. Has your store experienced any changes in your customer base as a
                result of DUFB? If so, in what way?

           From a purchasing perspective, do you believe that your
                store purchased
                  more locally grown produce by having the DUFB program?

           Do you feel your produce department had a greater focus
                on locally grown
                  produce because of the DUFB program?

      11. Did any other unexpected benefits emerge from having the DUFB
                program at your store?

        Overall . . .

      12. What have been any other challenges we haven't mentioned so far
                with implementing DUFB?

      13. What advice would you give to other grocery stores planning to
                implement a similar program?

      14. What improvements or recommendations would you have for the DUFB
                program?

      15. Overall, how satisfied have you been with your store's
                participation in the program and why?

      16. If you had it to do over again, would you agree to implement DUFB
                at your grocery store?

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Beal. I appreciate that.
        Ms. Hess, 5 minutes.

             STATEMENT OF PAMELA HESS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                 ARCADIA CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE FOOD &
                      AGRICULTURE, ALEXANDRIA, VA

        Ms. Hess. Thank you. My name is Pamela Hess, I am the
    Executive Director of Arcadia, and I am beyond excited to be
    here this morning.
        I came to the nonprofit food world from national security
    journalism. I covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
    consequently, I spent a lot of time visiting people who had
    been injured, at Walter Reed. And as you know, the signature
    injury of those wars is a lower limb amputation.
        So fast-forward to 2013 when I joined the nonprofit Arcadia
    Center for Sustainable Food & Agriculture, as Executive
    Director, here in D.C. Arcadia is dedicated to, among other
    things, dismantling the barriers to a healthy diet, which, in
    D.C., tend to be geography and income, and we reconnect the
    urban core to the rural economy.
        The first time I went into the low-food access
    neighborhoods that we serve, I saw a remarkable number of
    people in wheelchairs and on crutches with amputated limbs, and
    I thought they were war veterans. My staff told me I was wrong;
    they have diabetes.
        So here is some perspective. There are about 1,500
    amputations from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 10
    years of war, a result of a very diabolical and determined
    enemy. Do you know how many diabetic amputations there are in
    the United States in a given year? Let's look at 2010: 73,000
    in 1 year. This is not a health system problem, or at least not
    just a health system problem, this is also a food system
    problem. It is about what you eat. But what you eat is largely
    dictated by the food that is convenient and affordable to you.
    For most low-income people in this city, that means processed
    and convenience foods, the excessive consumption of which
    correlates strongly with chronic diseases like diabetes, heart
    disease, hypertension, obesity, and many forms of cancer. We
    can't condemn people for making bad choices if they don't have
    a choice to begin with, at least not a convenient and
    affordable one. So Arcadia's mobile markets are trying to
    change that.
        Our mobile markets are rolling farm stands that sell a
    complete healthy diet at affordable prices and convenient
    locations. You have our schedule in front of you. We make 14
    regular weekly stops in our area.
        Because we exclusively serve low-income neighborhoods, we
    accept eight forms of tender at least, each of which has unique
    rules. For instance, we double SNAP for fruits and veggies as
    well as proteins, and the fruits and veggies come through the
    Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Program that you all funded
    in the last farm bill, and we thank you for that because it is
    making a powerful impact on our customers. But all of those
    forms of tender make for a really complex point of sale that
    can be frustrating for my staff, a few members of whom are here
    today, and certainly for our customers.
        So in 2015, we helped design and started using a custom
    iPad-based mobile point of sale system that we use out at our
    mobile markets. Our partner is Perigee Labs. It is called the
    Arcadia Farmers Register, and like other point of sale systems,
    it speeds transactions and improves our accounting, and it
    helps us manage our inventory. But more importantly, it
    collects data that gives us keen insight into what our SNAP
    customers are purchasing, where, when, and how they are using
    FINI to maximize their nutrition per dollar. As near as I can
    tell, we are the only farmers' market or farm stand using
    something like this.
        And so here is what we know from our data, and first the
    big picture. Our customers, the vast majority of whom are low-
    income, have pumped nearly $468,000 in new revenue into the
    rural economy, into the hands of farmers in the Mid-Atlantic
    since 2012. That is a powerful vote for healthy food.
        Since 2012, the mobile market's annual revenues have
    increased by more than 400 percent, with no marketing budget,
    while serving some of the poorest neighborhoods in D.C. That is
    another vote. It is all by word-of-mouth.
        Because we locate in the neighborhoods where folks who use
    SNAP live, work, or go to school, we have a disproportionate
    impact on this community.
        So let's be clear. We are small, we are adorable, we roll
    around town selling vegetables out of the back of the green
    bus. So let's modulate our expectations here. We do less than
    two percent of all farmers' market business in Washington,
    D.C., but we redeem 30 percent of all SNAP benefits at farmers'
    markets in Washington, D.C., and that is because we are
    convenient, we are affordable, our food is first quality, it is
    not gleaned, it is not borrowed from other farmers' markets at
    the end of the day. And if you still wonder whether people on
    SNAP want healthy food, here you go. In 2012, our average SNAP
    customer took home about $7.50 worth of food from the mobile
    market. That has nearly tripled to $19 per SNAP transaction at
    the mobile market in this last year. So FINI encourages healthy
    purchases. And again, this is what you all funded in the farm
    bill. Our SNAP customers are the most likely among all of our
    low-income customers to reach into their pockets for cash to
    buy even more food. That is important because it means our SNAP
    customers value the food enough to buy it without the 50
    percent discount they are getting from FINI. When our SNAP
    customers also use cash, they spend an additional $6.93 per
    transaction, on average, and that goes straight into local
    farmers' pockets.
        In 2015, 70 percent of our SNAP transactions included
    produce. In 2016, the total was 81 percent. That is a bold
    upward trend for produce.
        So let me repeat that, because of FINI, the popularity of
    produce is trending up.
        Now for the nitty-gritty. The top four products sold to our
    SNAP customers in 2016 were fruits and veggies. We sold 972
    pounds of apples, 860 pounds of peaches, 514 pounds of onions,
    409 pounds of kale. In the last 2 years since we instituted our
    point of sale system, we have sold 675 pounds of apples, 1,475
    pounds of peaches, 1,098 pounds of cantaloupe, 812 pounds of
    potatoes, and 796 pounds of kale. We are demonstrating every
    day that if you make wholesome food affordable and convenient,
    low-income people will purchase it and consume it in ever-
    increasing amounts. That is good for the rural economy, and it
    is great for public health.
        I look forward to your questions. Please ask me about
    Yvonne Smith, one of our customers.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Hess follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Pamela Hess, Executive Director, Arcadia Center
               for Sustainable Food & Agriculture, Alexandria, VA
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking Member for having me
    here today.
        I came to the nonprofit world from journalism. I covered the
    military and the CIA for nearly 20 years. I covered the wars in Iraq
    and Afghanistan, and consequently I spent a lot of time visiting people
    who had been injured visited at Walter Reed. As you know, the most
    visible injury of those wars is a lower limb amputation.
        Fast forward to 2013 when I joined the nonprofit Arcadia Center for
    Sustainable Food & Agriculture here in D.C. Arcadia is dedicated to
    among other things dismantling the barriers to a healthy diet.
        The first time I went out on Mobile Markets in the low-food access
    neighborhoods we serve, I saw a remarkable number of people in
    wheelchairs and on crutches, with amputated limbs. I thought they were
    war veterans. I was wrong. They were victims of diabetes.
        There have been about 1,500 amputations from 10 years of war,
    resulting from the work of a very diabolical and determined enemy. Do
    you know how many diabetic amputations there are in this country? In
    2010 alone, about 73,000.
        This isn't just a health system problem. This is a food system
    problem: what you have access to, what you can afford, and what you
    consume.
        There are two food systems. There is the one most of us enjoy,
    where you can access just about anything you want, whenever you want.
    But if you have limited income and lack reliable transportation, you
    are primarily eating what's in your immediate neighborhood, which for
    most low-income people in Washington, D.C., means what's available from
    convenience stores and fast food.
        If we are going to address the galloping rates of chronic disease
    which cost the United States somewhere north of $300 billion a year,
    healthy foods need to be just as ubiquitous, inexpensive and appealing
    as the processed and convenience foods that so many of us--regardless
    of income--eat regularly. If you have ever tried to diet, you know how
    hard it is. If you can't afford healthy food or access it conveniently,
    it is almost impossible to make a sustained change in your diet.
        And we all pay the price for the bad quality diets most Americans
    eat. Beyond the human cost, as a nation we all bear the burden in
    increased health care costs, insurance premiums, Medicaid, Medicare,
    and lost productivity.
        Arcadia is trying to fix that, here in Washington.
        Our nonprofit was established in 2010 by restaurateur Michael
    Babin.
        We work in three interlocking mission areas:
    Sustainable Agriculture
        We grow food on our vegetable farm in suburban Virginia on the
    grounds of the National Trust for Historic Preservation's Woodlawn-
    Pope-Leighey. We train military veterans to be farmers on that same
    land, which incidentally was once cultivated by George Washington
    himself after he resigned his military commission. So we are increasing
    the supply of wholesome food and farmers to grow it in our region.
    Farm and Nutrition Education
        Then we use the farm as a campus for school children to learn about
    agriculture, connect the food they eat to where it originates, and to
    get them excited about healthy food. It works: we see a 29 percent
    increase in the number of kids who like eating beets after they attend
    a field trip to our farm. So we are building demand for wholesome food
    even as we add to the supply.
        But none of that does any good if you don't have a way of getting
    that food into the hands of the people who need it the most.
    Food Access
        That is where our market-based distribution model comes in. We have
    two Mobile Markets. The Mobile Markets are rolling farm stands that
    stock a complete healthy locally grown diet--from fruit and vegetables
    and herbs to milk, pastured and grass fed meat, eggs, and sustainably
    sourced fish. We take the farm stand to neighborhoods without a
    quality, affordable source of food. We pop out our awning, set up
    tables and tents and within about 30 minutes, have a fully functioning
    farmers' market. We do this at 14 regular weekly stops in low-food
    access neighborhoods--places with high use of SNAP (the supplemental
    nutrition assistance program), low-car ownership and typically no store
    that can support a healthy diet within about a mile. We serve areas
    where people don't have much money, rely on public transportation, and
    have limited geographic access to wholesome food.
    How the Mobile Markets Work
        The Arcadia Mobile Markets prove that if you make high-quality food
    affordable and convenient, you can change the way people eat. Because
    our work centers on low-income communities, it is especially applicable
    to this discussion.
        Healthy food needs to be just as ubiquitous, cheap and appealing as
    the processed and convenience foods that so many of us--regardless of
    income--eat regularly. If you have ever tried to diet, you know how
    hard it is. If you can't afford healthy food or access it conveniently,
    it is almost impossible to make a sustained change in your diet.
        This is not an emergency food pantry, as necessary as those are.
    Our customers spend their own resources--be it their own money or a
    nutrition benefit--to select the most nutritious, fresh, local food.
    They buy it. They value it. They eat it.
        We accept at least eight forms of tender--SNAP, WIC, Senior FMNP
    vouchers, Produce Plus vouchers, cash, debit, credit and our own
    coupons. Each of the forms of tender has their own rules. We also
    double WIC and Senior vouchers, but those are only for produce. PPP is
    good for $10 in produce and is not doubled.
        We make it affordable by matching SNAP purchases at the register
    for fruits, veggies, and proteins dollar for dollar. What that means
    for our customers is a 50 percent discount on the highest quality food
    possible. Our fruit and vegetable SNAP sales are matched through the
    Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive program the Congress funded in the
    last farm bill via our partner Wholesome Wave. It is a game changer,
    which our data demonstrates.
        Our SNAP protein sales or clean, grass-fed, pastured meat, eggs,
    and milk--and our fruit and veggie match for WIC and Senior FMNP
    vouchers--are matched by other donors, including the Bainum Family
    Foundation, William S. Abell Foundation, Power Supply, Inova, George
    Washington University's Inversity program, and Alston & Bird.
    Leveraging Technology to Increase Food Access
        As you can imagine, this makes for a complex, and sometime
    confusing point of sale. To make our transactions and our financial
    reporting easier, in the winter of 2014 we put up a request on Facebook
    for someone savvy with technology to help us create a point of sale
    system we could use on the Mobile Market to easily ring up our
    transactions.
        Perigee Labs stepped up to partner with us, and they designed an
    elegant, iPad-based point of sale system--a glorified cash register--
    that we can use at our market stops to ring up sales that does all that
    math for us without a WiFi connection. Because we are a nonprofit and
    want to minimize costs, we built this for a second-generation iPad,
    available refurbished for around $250.
        The Arcadia Farmers Register speeds customer transactions, manages
    inventory, and expedites financial reporting. Because it associates
    every transaction with the form of tender used to purchase it, the
    location, time, and price, it also yields valuable data on the food
    purchasing patterns of our customers. Arcadia is now working with the
    city of Washington to use the data to inform and design food policies
    and interventions that encourage the purchase of nutrient dense foods.
        The Arcadia Farmers Register is a scalable solution to creating a
    national database of healthy food purchasing behaviors available free
    of charge to government policy makers and public health researchers. It
    can also be used to ascertain prices at farmers' markets nationwide,
    and to improve the farm business valuation system used to determine
    capital lent to small farmers.
        It was used this year by ten organizations and farms across the
    nation who are also working in healthy food access.

      Real Food Farm in Maryland,
      Grow Ohio Valley in West Virginia,
      The Kellyn Foundation in Pennsylvania,
      Waterloo Greens to Go in Iowa,
      Healthy Here in New Mexico,
      Vegas Roots in Nevada,
      Seacoast Eat Local in New Hampshire,
      Good Food Bus in Maine,
      DC Urban Greens in Washington, D.C., and
      Mill City Grows in Massachusetts.
    Data Gathering
        But the more we used the Farmers Register, the more we began to see
    its transformational value: the data on the back end. Because of the
    Arcadia Farmers Register, we understand what our customers buy, what
    they want, how they use their Federal nutrition benefits, and how they
    combine them with cash or other benefits to maximize the healthy food
    their families get.
        We can analyze the impact interventions like cooking demonstrations
    and coupons have on promoting products and changing behaviors. We no
    longer go ``on our gut'' or anecdotally to determine what works in
    improving our customers' diets. We can rely on cold, hard data.
        The question is often asked: what are SNAP customers using the
    benefit to buy?
        As a rule, people in my line of work have relied primarily on self-
    reporting surveys of SNAP customers to answer that question. While
    useful, the results can be a little unreliable. Ask me what I had for
    breakfast this morning and I am far more likely to admit to my oatmeal
    at 7 a.m. than I am to the donut chaser at 10 a.m. The Arcadia Farmers
    Register tracks what customers who use SNAP purchase at every stop,
    every day, every week, every season.
        Because they choose what they want and spend their own resources,
    we know they are eating the food. We can measure actual changes in
    purchasing patterns, track improvements, and figure out what works to
    increase our customers' consumption of the most nutritious foods.
    Results
        First, the big picture:

       Our customers, the vast majority of whom are low income,
            have pumped more than $468,000 in new farm sales into the rural
            economy in the Mid-Atlantic--revenue farmers would not
            otherwise have without the Arcadia Mobile Markets as they do
            not have access to these customers.

       Since 2012, Mobile Market annual revenues have increased by
            more than 400 percent with no marketing budget while serving
            the poorest neighborhoods in Washington, D.C. This remarkable
            increase in revenue has occurred almost entirely through word
            of mouth. Our sales have increased because our customers love
            the food and the prices

       Although the Mobile Markets represent less than two percent
            of total farmers' market revenues in Washington, D.C., we
            redeem about 30 percent of all SNAP benefits used at farmers'
            markets in the city. We have a disproportionate impact on the
            SNAP-using community. We attribute this to our locations--we
            are convenient to SNAP customers--to our prices, to the high
            quality and variety of offerings, and to our customer service.

       In 2012, our average SNAP customer took home about $7.50 of
            food from the Mobile Market That has nearly tripled to about
            $19 per SNAP transaction. That means our SNAP customers tried
            this food and doubled down using their EBT cards. They have
            increased their demand and consumption of nutritious food.

        The impact of FINI: FINI encourages healthy purchases:

       Our SNAP customers are the most likely among all low-income
            customers to reach into their pockets for cash to buy even more
            food. This is important because it means that these customers
            so value the food they get they are willing to spend their own
            money on it without getting the 50 percent discount. This is
            proof the FINI program works and meets a need.

       More proof the FINI program is creating converts. While SNAP
            customers only used cash in two percent of their transactions
            during the past two season, those two percent are strong users,
            with an average amount of additional cash spent at $6.93 per
            transaction. Compare that to the next highest users, PPP
            customers, who are getting $10 in free fruits and veggies. PPP
            customers who spend cash spend an average of $2.22. Keep in
            mind that SNAP can be spent on any food at any store. In
            contrast, PPP is free and can only be used for produce at
            farmers' markets in D.C. This statistic, while complex, is
            important because it demonstrates that SNAP customers are
            willing to invest more of their own resources, which could be
            spent on any SNAP eligible item, on produce and then invest
            their own money.

       We did 3,769 SNAP transactions over the last two seasons. 75
            percent of all SNAP transactions went for produce. That number
            is trending up, from 70 percent [in] 2015 to 81 percent in
            2016.

       The increase in produce sales to SNAP customers is
            remarkable considering the similar increase in D.C.-funded
            Produce Plus benefits. That means overall demand for healthy
            produce is sharply increasing.

        SNAP customers spent more than $37,000 on produce during the past
    two seasons, \1/2\ of the total attributable to FINI:

       1,675+ pounds of apples.

       1,475+ pounds of peaches.

       1,098+ pounds of cantaloupe.

       812+ pounds of potatoes.

       796+ pounds of kale.

        The popularity of produce is trending up:

       The top 4 four products sold to SNAP customers in 2016,
            based on transactions, are `Produce'--they are in fact six of
            the top ten. Our SNAP customers have other choices--they can
            also buy meat, eggs, cheese and milk. But they increasingly
            choose fruits and vegetables, and more of them.

       That is a dramatic change from 2015, when produce cracked
            the top four only once: apples.

        In 2016 our top 4 SNAP purchases, all of which leveraged FINI
    funds:

       972 pounds of apples, a 38 percent increase over 2015.

       860 pounds of peaches, a 40 percent increase over 2015.

       514 pounds of onions, an 83 percent increase over 2015.

       409 pounds of kale, a six percent increase over 2015.

        More than 70 percent of our transactions occur with verified low-
    income customers using some form of nutrition benefit. Here's what we
    know since we implemented the Farmers Register in 2015. It is just a
    taste of what our customers took home from us for the last two seasons.

       7,865 customers bought 14,467 lbs of local peaches.

       7,810 customers bought 13,879 lbs of local apples.

       1,984 customers bought 7,473 lbs of local watermelons.

       2,385 customers bought 9,814 lbs of cantaloupe.

       3,706 customers bought 5,195 lbs of kale.

       2,871 customers bought 4,258 lbs of summer squash.

       2,277 customers bought 4,019 lbs of sweet potatoes.

       2,160 customers bought 5,587 lbs of cabbage.

        Nutrition incentives change lives.
        One of our customers, Yvonne Z. Smith, shared her story with me.
    Yvonne is 64, in her own home in Washington, D.C.'s Ward 8. She has
    crippling arthritis and is on disability--like many seniors in this
    country she is at particular risk of food insecurity. Until this year
    she was diabetic. Because her housing costs are more than 50 percent of
    her income, she qualifies for SNAP--a total of $16 a month. It's not
    much, but it helps.
        She uses SNAP at the Mobile Market, so her $16 becomes $32. She
    leverages PPP get even more produce and also uses cash.
        She has cut all processed foods and simple sugars out of her diet.
    She cooks collards and kales in big batches in a crockpot twice a
    month, freezes them, and eats them three times a week. She has raw
    salads four times a week. The magnesium in the greens cuts down on the
    inflammation from arthritis. She eats brown rice and only rarely white
    potatoes.
        Yvonne is now free from diabetes. The Mobile Market's rich,
    seasonal selection of affordable, sustainably grown vegetables is
    critical to her transformation and ongoing health.
        ``Organic is seen as something only for the rich. Having access to
    vegetables that you might not try is important,'' she told me.
    ``Mushrooms, for example. I use them when I cook beef and that means I
    cut down on the amount of beef because of the texture, and (Arcadia
    has) them more reasonable than grocery stores.''
        ``I am the person for whom just a little help is important,'' she
    told me. ``It is the access to the vegetables within blocks of me that
    made all the difference, and the (incentives).''
    About Arcadia
    The History of the Arcadia Center for Sustainable Food & Agriculture
        Washington, D.C. restaurateur Michael Babin founded Arcadia to fix
    a problem he first came into contact with when trying to source local,
    responsibly well-grown fruits and vegetables for his restaurants. The
    supply was small and the price was high.
        He asked himself: if this is so difficult for me, what does that
    mean for the rest of Washington? That question quickly led him to the
    public health crisis engendered by our food system: exceptionally
    effective at producing nutrition-free calories that are cheap at the
    point of sale but devastatingly expensive for public health. With few
    nutritious choices, constrained resources, and limited transportation,
    low-income communities suffer disproportionate rates of chronic disease
    that result from our industrial food system--diabetes, hypertension,
    heart disease and obesity. The health care cost to the United States
    annually is staggering--nearly $\1/2\ trillion.
        Babin created Arcadia, a 501(c)[(3)], in 2010 to innovate solutions
    to the gaps he saw in the local food system with the mission of
    improving public health through food.
        He established Arcadia on the National Trust for Historic
    Preservation's Woodlawn-Pope-Leighey site in Alexandria, Va., just 14
    miles from the nation's capital. Woodlawn is the first property the
    Trust ever purchased to save, and Arcadia has returned agriculture to
    this historic farm. This land was Dogue Run Farm, once part of George
    Washington's Mount Vernon. But its significance for the local food
    movement goes well beyond the first President.
        In 1846, 2 decades before the Civil War and the Emancipation
    Proclamation, timber merchants bought the then--2,000 acre--property
    from Washington's family. These merchants were, not insignificantly,
    Quakers and abolitionists, and they had a plan for the property:
    Woodlawn would be a slavery-free farming community that would prove to
    the rest of the South that slavery was not necessary for a farm to
    thrive. They sold plots to free African-Americans, Irish and German
    immigrants, and other Quakers. They established the mansion as an
    integrated school for the town's children and created an integrated
    militia to protect the citizens. As a ``free labor zone,'' for the
    first time in the Woodlawn's history, it was a profitable farming
    operation.
        Arcadia, like the Quakers before us, is using food and agriculture
    to advance social justice.
        Standing on the shoulders of those who came before, Arcadia is
    partnering with the National Trust for Historic Preservation to
    transform the 126 acre Woodlawn-Pope-Leighey estate into a true Center
    for Sustainable Food & Agriculture.
        Just 25 minutes from Washington, D.C., Arcadia at Woodlawn will
    offer a landmark destination farmhouse restaurant, year-round farm
    stand, farm cafe, Virginia wine and cider tasting room, and craft food
    pavilion that will link the property's inspiring legacy of social and
    racial justice to food equity, public health, and the strengthening of
    the regional food system. Arcadia's programming and events will be
    expanded to include food policy conferences, lectures, culinary and
    gardening classes, edible landscaping, art and design events, and an
    expanded veteran farmer training program, enriched school programs, and
    experiential agriculture.
        Arcadia at Woodlawn will once again reclaim the central role the
    property has historically occupied, serving as a beacon for food
    justice, environmental sustainability, and a healthy food system.
        Arcadia has launched a $20 million capital campaign to fund the
    rehabilitation of the historic farm buildings and finance new
    construction.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Hess. You will need to learn
    to talk a little quicker.
        Ms. Newport for 5 minutes.

           STATEMENT OF MELINDA R. NEWPORT, M.S., R.D./L.D.,
              DIRECTOR, WIC AND CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS,
             CHICKASAW NATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ADA, OK

        Ms. Newport. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
    Committee. Thank you for the invitation to present testimony
    today. I would particularly like to acknowledge Congressman
    Lucas, and thank you for your many years of service to Oklahoma
    citizens.
        My name is Melinda Newport, I am Director of WIC and Child
    Nutrition Programs with the Chickasaw Nation. I bring you
    greetings from Bill Anoatubby, Governor of the Chickasaw
    Nation.
        The Chickasaw Nation has more than 63,000 citizens, and our
    jurisdictional boundaries encompass 13 counties in south
    central Oklahoma. We administer several USDA FNS programs, as
    well as a variety of nutrition-related demonstration and
    research projects. As a registered dietician, having worked at
    the national level on many challenging nutrition program issues
    over the last 30 years, I am pleased to share the innovation in
    our Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act Demonstration to End Childhood
    Hunger, also known as Packed Promise.
        Although we administer a number of Federal, state, and
    Tribally funded nutrition programs, we still find there are
    gaps in rural areas; evidenced by the fact that 15 percent of
    households remain food-insecure. One in four children in
    Oklahoma experience hunger. Transportation is often an issue
    among the food-insecure clients, and limited access to grocery
    stores with quality food choices in rural areas is common. To
    help eliminate these barriers, as well as the stigma often
    associated with food-assistance programs, the idea for direct
    mail food benefit via an online grocery shopping experience was
    conceived. The Packed Promise project is designed to test the
    viability of an online ordering system and home delivery of
    food benefits to household with school-age children who qualify
    for free school meals. A unique feature of the Packed Promise
    project is the partnership between the Chickasaw Nation and
    Feed the Children, a nonprofit food assistance organization.
    This public-private partnership with Feed the Children provides
    logistics experts, a broad network of volunteers, and the food-
    buying power to allow an increased number of children to be
    served for far fewer dollars. Families choose from five food
    packages comprised of nutrient-dense, shelf-stable food items
    from a food ordering website. A couple of examples of the food
    packages may be found in the printed version of this testimony.
    Each child receives one 25 pound box of shelf-stable foods,
    plus a $15 fresh check to purchase fresh or frozen fruits and
    vegetables at Chickasaw Nation WIC-authorized retailers or
    farmers' markets. This benefit provides adequate food for an
    evening meal, plus one snack each day, intended to supplement
    the National School Lunch Program.
        The overall goal for the food package is to provide a well-
    balanced, nutrient-dense food benefit that offers commonly
    accepted foods, while providing exposure to a few unfamiliar
    wholesome food options. Food requiring minimal preparation were
    included to accommodate the potential that youth may prepare
    meals on their own.
        The direct mail food benefit is intended to alleviate
    episodic food insecurity by delivering the food package at the
    time of the month when SNAP benefits would likely have run out.
    To date, Packed Promise has provided benefits to an average of
    3,500 children for each of the past 9 months.
        USDA has commissioned a rigorous independent evaluation of
    the project to be performed by Mathematica Policy Research to
    look at the change in the prevalence of food insecurity among
    children, improvement in diet quality, and evaluation of costs
    associated with the project.
        A couple of anecdotes I would like to share. A grandmother
    shopped with her grandchildren to let them choose their fruits
    and vegetables with their FRESH check. One child chose a
    pineapple. The grandmother was unfamiliar with how to cut up a
    fresh pineapple, so she looked up a how-to video on YouTube.
    Her children loved it, and she said it was their first time to
    try fresh pineapple. A grateful father called to express
    appreciation for the program, and said it not only helps
    financially, but it has also changed some of his family's
    eating habits, such as eating more beans, tomatoes, and
    vegetables they do not normally choose to buy. He said this has
    provided healthier options for his family.
        Chairman Conaway, we appreciate the Committee's commitment
    to ensuring the viability, strength, and quality of Federal
    nutrition programs, and in particular, a focus on innovations
    that might enhance the effectiveness of our country's largest
    nutrition safety net program.
        In conclusion, it appears online ordering of foods and
    direct shipment to the home is a viable model for addressing
    food insecurity for rural families, while ensuring access to
    more nutritious foods. Investment by Federal nutrition programs
    and targeted foods of high nutritional quality, and educational
    support to assist families in using those optimally, is
    critical to reducing food insecurity, as well as avoiding many
    costly chronic diseases, as we have heard.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our experience. I
    look forward to answering any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Newport follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Melinda R. Newport, M.S., R.D./L.D., Director,
       WIC and Child Nutrition Programs, Chickasaw Nation Department of
                                Health, Ada, OK
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    invitation to present testimony today. I would particularly like to
    acknowledge Mr. Frank D. Lucas, our Representative from Oklahoma, and
    thank you for your many years of service to our citizens.
        My name is Melinda Newport, M.S., R.D./L.D., Director, WIC and
    Child Nutrition Programs, Nutrition Services, for the Chickasaw Nation.
    I bring you greetings from Bill Anoatubby, Governor of the Chickasaw
    Nation. The Chickasaw Nation administers several United States
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food & Nutrition Services (FNS)
    programs, as well as, a variety of nutrition-related demonstration and
    research projects. As a registered dietitian having worked at the
    national level on many challenging nutrition program issues for more
    than 30 years, I am pleased and honored to testify today.
        Chairman Conaway, we appreciate the Committee's commitment to
    ensuring the viability, strength and quality of Federal nutrition
    programs and, in particular, a focus on innovations that might enhance
    the effectiveness of our country's largest nutrition safety net
    program. Increasing access to and availability of nutritious foods for
    families in rural areas is a challenge. On behalf of the Chickasaw
    Nation, thank you for this opportunity to share regarding innovations
    in our Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act Demonstration to End Childhood
    Hunger, also known as Packed Promise.
        The Chickasaw Nation has more than 63,000 citizens and our
    jurisdictional boundaries encompass all or part of 13 counties in
    south-central Oklahoma.
    Common Access Barriers to Nutritious Foods
        In spite of the Chickasaw Nation's administering a dozen or so
    Federal, state and Tribally funded nutrition programs, we still find
    there are gaps in rural areas, evidenced by the fact that 15.5% of
    households remain food-insecure. Children's development, health, and
    well-being depend on access to a safe and secure source of food. In
    Oklahoma, 25.6% of children are food-insecure, meaning they either go
    hungry or do not receive the minimal nutritional amounts set forth by
    the USDA. Due to the rural nature of the Chickasaw Nation, many
    participants live in food deserts, the closest grocery store is often
    10 miles or further from their home. The Chickasaw Nation has observed
    that transportation is often an issue among the most food-insecure
    clients and limited access to grocery stores with quality food choices
    in rural areas is common. To help eliminate these barriers, as well as
    the stigma often associated with food assistance programs, the idea for
    a direct mail food benefit via an online grocery shopping experience
    was conceived.
    Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act to End Childhood Hunger Demonstration
            Projects
        In 2014, USDA administered a competitive grant process with the
    purpose to test innovative strategies to end childhood hunger. This
    included alternative models for service delivery and benefit levels
    that promote the reduction or elimination of childhood hunger and food
    insecurity. USDA placed special emphasis in targeting areas or
    populations where there are currently elevated levels of food
    insecurity or gaps in nutrition assistance program coverage.
        The Chickasaw Nation's Packed Promise project was one of five
    projects awarded nationally through USDA's Demonstration Projects to
    End Childhood Hunger grant. Packed Promise is designed to test the
    viability of an online ordering system and home delivery of food
    benefits to households with school-age children who qualify for free
    school meals.
    Packed Promise Project Design
        A unique feature of the Packed Promise project, is the partnership
    between the Chickasaw Nation and Feed the Children, a 501(c)(3),
    nonprofit food assistance organization with expertise and vast
    experience in global food operations such as: bulk food ordering,
    packaging, and delivery. Feed the Children provides logistics experts,
    a broad network of volunteers, and the food buying power to allow an
    increased number of children to be served for fewer food dollars.
    Working together in a mutually supportive partnership, the national
    public nutrition assistance and private food assistance systems can
    prevent and eradicate the unnecessary health problem of childhood
    hunger. Furthermore, the convenient geographic location of one of their
    distribution centers created an appealing efficiency. We also leveraged
    the existing website developed by Feed the Children for online food
    ordering for individuals and households and customized the content with
    Packed Promise branding.
        As the only viable access point to reaching children across rural
    Oklahoma, the Chickasaw Nation collaborates with school districts to
    identify students who have elevated levels of food insecurity. In order
    to be included in the demonstration area, school districts had to meet
    the following inclusion criteria--(1) a county with a diabetes
    prevalence rate of 15% or higher, (2) a county with 15% of households
    with children less than 18 years old who fall below the poverty line
    for income, (3) a county with a general population greater than 9%
    Native American, (4) exceed 50% free school meal eligible student
    population, ([5]) exceed the state wide average of 16.6% Native
    American student population, ([6]) located within the Chickasaw Nation
    jurisdictional boundaries.
        The home delivery portion of the project design creates an
    experience similar to online grocery shopping. Families choose from
    five food packages comprised of nutrient dense, shelf stable food items
    from a food ordering website. Each month participants order their food
    boxes via the website or by calling the Packed Promise team. Each
    eligible child receives one 25 pound box of shelf stable foods plus a
    $15 FRESH check to purchase fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables at
    Chickasaw Nation WIC authorized retailers or Farmers' Markets.
    Nutrition education, recipes, vendor information, and other project
    tips are also available on the food ordering website.
        The Packed Promise demonstration project provides an approximate
    retail value of $60 to $80 of food per month dependent upon the food
    package selected. Feed the Children, through their food buying
    expertise, volume purchasing, and use of donor relationships, is able
    to provide the food benefit for an average cost of $20.08 per food box.
    This benefit level provides adequate food for an evening meal plus one
    snack per day, intended to supplement the National School Lunch
    Program. Feed the Children competitively bid and awarded a contract to
    UPS to provide the delivery service.
        The Chickasaw Nation believes this innovative project will help
    alleviate food insecurity and improve diet quality, while proving to be
    a cost affordable food delivery model.
    Nutritional Content of Food Package
        The updated Nutrition Standards for School Meals were reviewed
    alongside the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and MyPlate
    recommendations for the project's targeted student population. From
    this review, the need for increases in the protein, whole grain and
    vegetable food groups were identified to effectively fill the biggest
    nutrient voids experienced by school-age food-insecure students. Dairy
    and fruits are offered at every school meal, so the focus was smaller
    on these food groups. A committee of Chickasaw Nation registered
    dietitians was also mindful of fat and sodium content, and chose to
    primarily offer low-fat, minimally processed packaged choices with low
    to moderate sodium content.
        The overall goal for the food package is to provide a well-
    balanced, nutrient dense food benefit that offers commonly accepted
    foods, while providing exposure to a few unfamiliar wholesome food
    options. Foods requiring minimal cooking or preparation were included
    to accommodate the potential that youth may prepare meals on their own.
        The Chickasaw Nation is aware that SNAP benefits are provided on a
    rolling month cycle. As SNAP benefit cycles end and food dollars run
    out, participants commonly report lack of food adequacy. As part of
    this implementation, participants answered questions regarding the week
    of the month in which they experience highest feelings of food
    insecurity, and, based on that, selected the week of the month in which
    they desire to receive their monthly direct mail benefit. The goal is
    that the direct mail food benefit will alleviate this episodic food
    insecurity by delivering a benefit during this critical time frame.
    Packed Promise Implementation Facts
        The Chickasaw Nation implemented the Packed Promise demonstration
    project in February 2015 and has provided benefits to families for the
    past 9 months. On average, 1,500 households comprised of 3,500 children
    receive benefits each month. To date, Packed Promise has shipped
    793,000 pounds of food to vulnerable Oklahoma families. These families
    have redeemed $261,000 in fresh fruits and vegetables by using their
    FRESH checks delivered along with their food boxes.
        Approximately 65% of participants place their orders online, while
    the remaining 35% call Packed Promise specialists who place the
    participants' orders on their behalf.
        It was initially perceived that this most vulnerable population
    move or change their place of residence often. Over the course of the
    past 8 months, less than a fourth, 22.59%, of the Packed Promise
    participants have indicated a change of address.
    Evaluation
        USDA commissioned a rigorous independent evaluation of each
    demonstration project. The evaluation is being performed by Mathematica
    Policy Research, Inc. The primary evaluation outcomes of interest are
    the change in the prevalence of food insecurity among children,
    improvement in diet quality, and evaluation of costs associated with
    the project.
    Documented Success Stories

       Grandmother and FRESH check experience--A grandmother shops
            with her grandchildren to let them choose fruits and
            vegetables. One child chose a pineapple. The grandmother was
            unfamiliar with how to cut a fresh pineapple, so looked up a
            ``how to'' video on YouTube. Her grandchildren loved it, and
            she said it was their first time to try fresh pineapple!

       Grateful father--A father called to express appreciation for
            the program and said it not only helps financially, but it has
            also changed some of his family's eating habits, such as eating
            more beans, tomatoes and other vegetables they do not normally
            choose to buy. He said it has provided healthier options for
            his family.

       Hummus--tried it, loved it!--A mother called and said that
            her son had never tried hummus, but ``gave it a shot'' since it
            was in the box. Now he takes it every day in his lunch for
            school and buys celery with the FRESH check to dip in his
            hummus!

       Help at just the right time! Staff were able to connect with
            a participant that had never placed an order before and was on
            unpaid leave from work after having surgery. She said God had
            answered her prayers when her phone rang and our staff was on
            the line explaining the program and taking her order for food!

       Christmas every month!--One mom called to place her monthly
            order and expressed extreme gratitude for Packed Promise. She
            stated that her family received the boxes every month, but to
            this day her girls still act like it's Christmas when the boxes
            arrive on the doorstep. They run to carry them inside and
            squeal with excitement when opening the boxes!
    Future Considerations
        As the Packed Promise demonstration is nearing the mid-point of its
    2 year implementation period, some adjustments are being considered.
    Since participants are limited to five food packages, modifications to
    the content of each package are being evaluated to increase variety and
    exposure to new foods, while alleviating repetitiveness. A goal of
    maintaining the overall nutritional composition will remain a priority.
        In our initial concept design, individual food item ordering was
    preferred versus ordering from a limited number of food packages.
    However, individual food item ordering presented multiple cost
    constraints such as maintaining adequate inventory of items, limiting
    bulk purchasing of items, and the take rate of specific short dated
    food items presents potential waste. In the nonprofit food assistance
    model, the ability to bulk order the contents of the food packages
    offers a significant cost savings and grouping items into food packages
    increases the inventory control. The Chickasaw Nation would be open to
    exploring an individual food item ordering model in a retail
    environment that would still gain access to volume purchasing, but
    would be able to offset some of the disadvantages through distribution
    of items to other store patrons if not ordered by program participants.
        The WIC Program EBT model allows the ability to prescribe specific
    nutrient dense food items and quantities for purchase at the
    participant's convenience. In the future, our preference would be to
    transition the $15 FRESH check benefit to an EBT card. With a check
    benefit, the entire amount of the check must be used all at once.
    Transitioning the fresh component to an EBT card would allow the
    participant to purchase produce as needed, would reduce stigma during
    shopping in the check-out lane, and the benefits for multiple children
    in a household could be aggregated on a single card.
    Conclusion
        In conclusion, it appears online ordering of foods and direct
    shipment to the home is a viable model for addressing food insecurity
    for rural families, while ensuring access to more nutritious food
    choices. Food assistance programs continue to be a key factor in
    building healthy and economically strong communities. Investment by
    Federal nutrition programs in targeted foods of high nutritional
    quality, and educational support to assist families in using those
    optimally, is critical to reducing food insecurity, as well as,
    avoiding obesity, diabetes and other costly chronic diseases that
    compromise quality of life.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee for this
    opportunity to share our experience. I look forward to answering any
    questions you may have.
                                   attachments
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Newport.
        The chair will remind Members they will be recognized for
    questioning in order of seniority for Members who were here at
    the start of the hearing. After that, Members will be
    recognized in order of arrival. I appreciate Members'
    understanding.
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        First off, thank you very, very much. I am not sure I have
    had five witnesses give us as much good news about a hard topic
    as you folks have just given us. It is particularly gratifying
    to see you are not waiting on the Federal Government, you are
    reaching out, you are doing things in your own spaces that you
    believe are in the best interest of Americans, and I really
    appreciate and thank you for that. Quite frankly, you are a lot
    more nimble at addressing issues than any government body can
    be, and I appreciate that.
        Mr. French, Mr. Lovelace, you both mentioned online
    transactions and security, can you flesh that out a little bit?
    How would that work without PIN numbers or without the normal
    circumstances with respect to a SNAP EBT card versus other
    credit cards that people might use? How would we know that the
    SNAP beneficiary that is using that card online is actually the
    person that is supposed to be using it? Can you walk us through
    a little bit of that?
        Mr. French. Sure. I will go first. First of all, like I
    mentioned in my testimony, we absolutely share the Committee's
    focus and prioritization on preventing fraud within the SNAP
    Program. I am probably not the best person to go super deep on
    the actual kind of technical implementation, so I am happy to
    follow up on that off-line, but what I can say is we have spent
    some time researching this and we do think that the current
    PIN-based solution is probably not the optimal solution; that
    there are alternatives out there, new mechanisms that are
    actually more secure. And, if we are selected into the pilot,
    we look forward to working with the USDA in exploring that
    further.
        The Chairman. Mr. Lovelace, your thoughts on that?
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes, to your point, the PIN issue I think has
    been one of the primary reasons that getting SNAP online has
    moved slowly. And I know that one of the primary processors
    fell out of the program, and I think that caused a major delay.
    We had been talking to the USDA more than 2 years ago about
    trying to accept transactions online, and I know it was a
    payment processing issue was one of the primary concerns.
        I think that the beauty of e-commerce is it is a database-
    driven technology so it allows for us to categorize our
    products. When people are purchasing online we filter our
    entire catalogue by different lifestyle preferences or
    different types of users. So we can completely filter the
    catalogue for somebody who is on SNAP and is making a SNAP
    purchase, in a way that only allows for funds to go to SNAP-
    approved products. And I think one of the challenges that
    exists in the current retail economy is that it is very hard to
    actually get reporting on aggregate purchasing behavior. Where
    are these funds going, how are they being used, it is like a
    black box. And yes, there is data, but it is actually very hard
    to get down in very granular reporting. And the beauty of using
    e-commerce is that it is so transparent. We provided real-time
    when we met with the USDA, we said, ``Hey, we can give you a
    real-time API look into our database if you want, and we can
    provide transparency.''
        The Chairman. Sure. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Beal, you mentioned your Double Up Program, and also
    evaluating, as Mr. Lovelace talked about, the purchasing
    patterns of the folks who were in your tests. Can you tell us
    how you fund your Double Up program? Does your own company do
    that, or do you partner with not-for-profits, how do you make
    everybody whole and still get the extra food for the
    recipients?
        Mr. Beal. Yes, thank you. Initially, during the pilot
    program, it was our understanding, at least we were told, that
    the program was funded by a philanthropist, and they wanted to
    demonstrate that the program that was initially implemented in
    farmers' markets up in the State of Michigan could be
    replicated and expanded with greater access to consumers in
    retail grocery stores. That was in 2015.
        In 2016, it is my understanding that some of our local
    partners, and about three of those partners are nonprofits,
    have applied for a grant, and apparently received a grant from
    the USDA to expand the program out. And that is my
    understanding for 2016, sir.
        The Chairman. All right. And your evaluation on purchasing
    patterns for the folks who use your Double Up Food Bucks, you
    said that was in process. When do you think you will have that
    information?
        Mr. Beal. I would expect to have that done within the next
    couple of months. And contrary to what has been stated by some
    of the online retailers, we have the ability, if we needed to,
    to provide real-time reporting of SNAP purchasers' history down
    to the very item. We can replicate the entire receipt of any
    consumer, just like when you go into a Best Buy or Home Depot,
    retailers that I think all of you can relate to, they have all
    that purchase detail. So it is just a mass of data out there,
    but with the proper set-up, there is no problem reporting on
    any of that.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you. Every Member wants to ask
    questions. And again, thank you all for being here.
        Mr. Peterson, I recognize you for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I represent an area that is very large, rural, remote, and
    I don't know, this might be a good idea, but I think that
    everybody on the Committee and you guys should go to Ponemah,
    Minnesota, before we do this, because----
        The Chairman. Is that part of the Chamber of Commerce pool
    and get everybody----
        Mr. Peterson. Well, it is on the Red Lake Reservation which
    is an Indian Reservation, which is 900,000\2\ miles, and I
    think it is an hour and some to any grocery store, and you
    can't get there unless you are going there. And the road ends
    and it isn't the end of the world, but you can see it from
    there. Or you go to Grygla or Waskish or Funkley, in Mr.
    Nolan's district. Those folks are having trouble now accessing
    SNAP. Maybe this is a good idea, they will be able to, but they
    don't have Internet a lot of them either, and the stores up
    there don't have Internet. Who is going to pay for delivering
    this stuff out there? If they can use their SNAP benefits, and
    if somebody will pay for the delivery and we don't take it out
    of the SNAP money, it might be a good idea. If we are going to
    do some kind of a demonstration or pilot project, one of the
    areas should be some place like this, so we see what happens in
    that kind of a situation. Because I have a lot of those places
    in my district, and I think Mr. Nolan has in his district, and
    there are other places in the country as well. I am not even
    sure there are maybe two towns in my district where you can get
    delivered groceries. I am not even sure about that.
        When they are doing these pilots, are they looking at
    having additional appropriations to pay for the delivery, or is
    there going to be no charge for the delivery, how is that all
    going to work? I don't know who wants to answer that.
        Mr. Lovelace. It is our understanding that we would be
    paying for the delivery, and our business model is set up to be
    able to do that. We are also leveraging existing last-mile
    infrastructure which makes it a lot more efficient for us. And
    we share your concern about those types of extremely rural
    communities. We did a program recently with the Sioux up in
    North Dakota where we delivered groceries to some of the most
    disadvantaged folks.
        Mr. Peterson. Whereabouts in North Dakota?
        Mr. Lovelace. I don't know exactly where it was, but I know
    it was on the Sioux Reservation. And, to your point, there are
    many times in the winter where groceries aren't even being
    delivered, and it is one of the highest rate of diabetes in the
    country.
        Mr. Peterson. Yes.
        Mr. Lovelace. I am not going to speak for Amazon, but we
    are prepared to be able to make a way to be able to absorb the
    shipping costs.
        Mr. Peterson. Are you going to undermine the few stores
    that we have out there if you take away their business?
        Mr. Lovelace. I think that is a fair concern. Our products
    are pretty different than the types of products that they would
    be offering, because we specialize in organic groceries, but I
    think that one of the things that we have seen is that while
    there is concern about existing retailers or health food stores
    with our model, because we are so disruptive with pricing. What
    we are seeing is that 50 percent of our customers are in the
    Midwest and the South, so we are bringing a new customer into
    the market that is wanting to do this.
        And, to another point that you made, the data that we have
    seen is 70, 75 percent of low-income communities have a
    smartphone. And so while they may not have Internet, they are
    able to purchase using their smartphone.
        Mr. Peterson. If they can get cell service.
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes.
        Mr. Peterson. I mean my farm up north, I don't have cell
    service.
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes, you have to go to a local hill or
    something.
        Mr. Peterson. If you can help us get more cell phone
    towers, we would appreciate it.
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes. That is----
        Mr. Peterson. I mean it is a nice thing sometimes because
    nobody can get ahold of you.
        How about Amazon, are you guys willing to eat the delivery
    fee, or how does that work?
        Mr. French. Yes, sure. So right now, we deliver non-
    perishable groceries nationwide. So all the people in your
    areas have the ability to order non-perishable grocery products
    on Amazon right now. We offer perishable grocery products
    through our Amazon Fresh Service, which is available in a
    number of regions, including many of the states in which the
    USDA has proposed to run the pilot. In terms of the fees, we
    have a few different ways that customers can buy groceries on
    Amazon, some of which do require a membership fee or have
    delivery charges. The SNAP funds would definitely not go
    towards that. If accepted into the pilot, we are absolutely
    interested in working with the USDA on ways to structure an
    implementation of the pilot to reduce and potentially eliminate
    those membership fees or delivery charges.
        Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time
    has expired.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Neugebauer, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
        Mr. French, did you say that you have applied to be a part
    of the pilot program with the USDA?
        Mr. French. Yes, we have applied.
        Mr. Neugebauer. And so I guess when you said what you are
    doing nationwide on non-perishable, and then you are doing
    regional for the perishable foods, are those regions primarily
    in major metropolitan areas at this particular point in time?
        Mr. French. Yes. The Amazon Fresh Service, which is our
    service for delivering full-line grocery assortment, including
    perishable groceries, tends to be more concentrated in urban
    and suburban regions right now. Certainly, our intent over time
    would be to be able to service SNAP customers nationwide, with
    some combination of the various programs and services that we
    have for delivering grocery products on Amazon.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Would that be partnering with suppliers in
    those regions to cut down on the distance to the final
    customer?
        Mr. French. Yes. It is tough for me to comment on the exact
    specifics of how we do it and what the implementation specifics
    would be until we are actually accepted into the pilot program.
    So, unfortunately, there is not much more I can share on that.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Beal, you said that the pilot incentive
    program has been successful. So when you talk to your customers
    who are SNAP recipients, what are the top reasons that they
    give you that they want to participate in this incentive? Why
    are they responding to that incentive? What do they say to you
    about that?
        Mr. Beal. I believe that we provided electronic copies so
    there will be more detail of the program report that was
    actually prepared by our five partners, but generally speaking,
    the participants reported that they were better able to afford
    healthier fruits and vegetables, that they shifted more of
    their purchasing from prepared foods, center store, be it
    cereals, the processed foods that a lot of consumers buy,
    towards fresh fruits and vegetables. You will see in the report
    too that they have shifted their purchasing habits, provided
    healthier eating options for their families as a result of this
    program.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Lovelace, you kind of got into the
    conversation a little bit about the technology of making sure
    that people that are actually the SNAP recipients are the ones
    receiving the food. I think both of you maybe alluded to the
    PIN technology may not be the answer to that. I was a little
    surprised at that because, I mean when these recipients are
    going into a grocery store today, they are using a PIN, and in
    many cases the grocer may or may not know whether that person
    using that card that has the PIN, is actually the person.
    First, what kind of downside is there to the PIN; and second,
    what is the technology that you would recommend?
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes. We are actually prepared to use a PIN
    infrastructure. We haven't specifically been pushing for that.
    Obviously, we believe in things being as efficient and secure
    as possible.
        And to the earlier point, one of the main reasons that
    there has been a delay in bringing this on, even though it was
    mandated in the 2014 Farm Bill, is the issue of PINs and the
    balkanization of the processors and how that works.
        My understanding is that there has been progress with the
    processors, and that there are going to be several states in
    the Northeast, especially in the first phase of the pilot, and
    that it will be a PIN-based technology approach, which we are
    comfortable implementing. From the beginning in our
    conversations with the USDA, we said we would be happy to
    absorb the technology costs associated with making those types
    of secure transactions work.
        In a world where you don't use PINs you look at actual
    fraud amongst credit card transactions in terms of people that
    are using credit cards that aren't actually theirs, it is
    actually incredibly low. I think that there is a case to be
    made that it could be very much like a credit card transaction,
    where you don't use a PIN.
        That said, we are not advocating for that specifically, and
    we would have to all study that together and find----
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well, I know the credit card industry is
    working on ways to prevent online fraud by using cards, and
    certainly that technology
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes. It is a real issue, but when you look at
    the total transaction size, it is still such a small part of
    it. But, we are not advocating necessarily to abandon PINs.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Scott, 5 minutes.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me direct this question to Mr. French and Mr. Lovelace.
    You are aware that there are efforts underway to restrict what
    SNAP recipients can purchase in the grocery store, such things
    as food monitoring, food surveillance, to determine that. And
    my concern is, and I want to see if it is your concern, that
    the expansion of SNAP to be used online could make it easier to
    restrict and limit the amount of food, the types of food, and
    purchases that are bought with SNAP dollars. How do you make
    sure that this is not happening?
        Mr. Lovelace. That is, obviously, a complex question, and I
    haven't honestly spent all that much time thinking about that
    particular aspect of it. I think you are hitting on privacy
    issues. I personally think it is a good thing that there is the
    ability to see transparently and accurately where funds are
    going, given it is a massive taxpayer program. At the end of
    the day, the approach to all of this has to be data-driven, so
    what are the types of products that people can use with SNAP
    that are actually going to be healthy for them, and my hope is
    that the data can transcend any ideological ideas around that.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. All right. Let me be more
    specific here. Let me go to you, Mr. French. How would Amazon
    ensure that all of the items, all the food purchases that a
    SNAP recipient can get in the grocery store are the same that
    he can get online, and that there are no efforts in between to
    use this online service as a way to restrict the food stamp
    recipient from getting the same thing that he can get. Because
    it is almost impossible, and many have already said that with
    brick-and-mortar at the grocery store, you really can't
    restrict that. That is not my concern, we fought that battle,
    but online there could be a way that you can use that
    instrument to limit the ability of food purchases by food
    stamps. So what would Amazon put in place to make sure that
    doesn't happen?
        Mr. French. Sure. Yes. It is difficult for me to comment on
    the exact specifics of how we would implement that, but what I
    can tell you is at Amazon, we are all about starting with the
    customer and working backwards, all about ensuring a great
    customer experience, and all about offering customers low
    prices, vast selection, and great convenience. And so we
    absolutely share the Committee's interest in offering SNAP
    recipients access to as wide a range of foods as possible, and
    to do anything counter to that would be counter to Amazon's
    intention to offer vast selection.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Now, there is also a growing
    movement and they use this term, healthy foods, right, we fight
    that battle, that limit the items that the food stamp recipient
    can get only to healthy foods. And there is no definition for
    that, but that is another way. So what would Amazon's position
    be on limiting items that can be purchased with stamp benefits
    to only healthy foods?
        Mr. French. Sure. Again, it is a little difficult to
    comment on the exact specifics of implementation until we are
    accepted in the pilot; but, what I can say is we absolutely
    believe in offering customers vast selection, offering them as
    many choices as possible, and in the case of SNAP recipients,
    offering them access to as broad a range of foods as possible
    to----
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes. Okay, thank you.
        Ms. Melinda Hess, didn't you want to share a story of
    Yvonne Smith?
        Ms. Hess. Yes.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Let me ask you something, and
    you showed how drastically she changed her diet. This hits home
    with me because, in my State of Georgia, I have 1,121,495
    people in my State of Georgia, adult population who have
    diabetes. That is 14.2 percent of the people. So I wanted to
    ask you how do we reach people effectively and give them the
    tools to change their life like Ms. Yvonne Smith did?
        Ms. Hess. Yvonne is one of our SNAP customers, and if you
    all haven't read the longer testimony, she is 64 years old, she
    is a homeowner, because her housing costs are more than 50
    percent of her income, she qualifies for SNAP. She gets $16 a
    month. With our bonus bucks, dollar-for-dollar, we double that
    to $32. She is able to access some other promotional programs
    for fruits and veggies, so she gets an additional $80 on top of
    that per month. And with this, she buys vast quantities of
    greens and salad greens. She cooks them up in giant batches and
    eats them all month. And what she told me this week is that she
    has brought her diabetes under control. She no longer suffers
    from it, by completely changing what she eats. She cut out all
    processed food, all starchy white foods. She is a true
    believer, and she gave me permission to share her story.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you.
        Ms. Hess. There is an old saying, which is pay the farmer
    or pay the doctor, and I promise you paying the farmer is way
    cheaper. So that is sort of the basis of our promotion of SNAP
    and the FINI incentive program.
        You have to attack it from a couple of----
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. I am sorry.
        The Chairman. We will do a second round, your time has
    expired.
        Ms. Hess. It is?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, I would like to turn to Director Newport. Chickasaw
    Nation has historically been very innovative, very aggressive
    in trying things, but we have, in addition to the Chickasaw
    Nation, 37 other federally recognized Tribes in Oklahoma. Can
    you discuss for just a moment, I assume it is not just
    Chickasaws, but the other Tribes in the state too are trying,
    with the flexibility that they have been given at different
    times, to be more innovative, correct, in delivering services
    and meeting the needs?
        Ms. Newport. Yes, sir. Those opportunities are available to
    any Tribe, in most cases.
        Mr. Lucas. And to you knowledge, not just the Chickasaws,
    and you can't speak for anyone else, I realize, but the spirit
    of innovation of the Chickasaws is also out there in the other
    Tribes too. We are trying hard in Oklahoma to maximize these
    opportunities.
        Ms. Newport. Yes. I think there are unique innovations in
    different Tribes around the state that have tried different
    initiatives to better serve their clientele.
        Mr. Lucas. Mr. Beal, I live in the third District of
    Oklahoma, kind of the west side of the district, the southern
    part of the Great Plains, east of the Rockies, some really
    rather interesting climates. And when I look at the concept of
    the Double Up Food Bucks program to encourage the purchase of
    local produce, a lot of times where I live, seasonally, there
    are not many options locally. With this kind of a program, my
    neighbors would say if it works and it works well, and it is so
    impressive, should people who live in areas where there are not
    local produce options always, should there be a greater
    opportunity to use not just local but more local than that. And
    I am sure your folks have looked at these issues, correct?
        Mr. Beal. Well, we originally started our local produce
    program right after 2000, and while that may be the situation
    in Oklahoma, we would look to parts of the country that are
    both south of us and to the west of us as having greater
    growing opportunities than what we have in Missouri, just
    because of the weather is a great function of that. Our local
    produce program, for the most part, the majority of the items,
    90 percent of the items, the season starts in mid-to-late May,
    continues throughout October. But we do have some local items
    that come in earlier that are--might be grown in greenhouses
    and the like. So it is something that you do have producers
    that are producing year-round, but with higher costs, that have
    a different business model. But we have defined for ourselves
    our local market as being within 200 miles of Kansas City, and
    we work with over 150 local family farmers in that market.
        Mr. Lucas. Okay, you have answered my question about what
    local is then. Okay.
        To Mr. French, kind of like Ranking Member Peterson, I do
    sort of live at the end of the world too. And, of course, my
    grandparents always referred to the catalogue houses, the
    entities in this country and commerce that existed before the
    Internet, the Sears and Roebucks of the world, and the Spiegels
    and the Montgomery Wards, who came into existence because of
    parcel post, and before the Postal department took a package
    delivery, if you lived out in the countryside, you didn't have
    many other options than the local merchant. But with the
    evolution of parcel post, the ability to deliver packages 125
    years ago, you could buy almost anything from those giant
    catalogues, a point that has always been made to me.
        Now, we have evolved to the present time, working on the
    quality of the transportation system, there are a number of
    private delivery companies who deliver in my area, and all over
    the world. Some are a little better than others at finding me.
    Some have a damn hard time finding me consistently. So I am
    sure in your market model, you are working with the delivery
    services to constantly improve that concept, right, so that my
    5 pound can of whatever winds up within 5 miles of my house?
        Mr. French. Yes, correct. We have worked very hard over the
    last 20 years to develop a reputation for world-class
    operational excellence, and that reputation encompasses a
    number of dimensions, including what you are articulating,
    which is the ability for customers to order an item on Amazon
    and have it arrive in the time period that they expect, and
    have it arrive safely. So yes, absolutely that is something
    that we take very seriously. And as we think about the
    opportunity to serve SNAP recipients, it is something that we
    would certainly be looking to extend to a new customer set.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. French. I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. McGovern, 5 minutes.
        Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you. And I want to thank all of
    you for being here today. It is important that we talk about
    new approaches that could be taken to improve access to food.
        I am pleased that the USDA has begun the process of
    reviewing applications for the online purchase pilot, which was
    authorized in the last farm bill, and I look forward to
    continuing our work to make it possible for SNAP recipients to
    purchase groceries online. It is an important step forward.
        It is also great to see FINI grants being put to good use
    to increase the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables.
    Using a FINI grant, my home State of Massachusetts is in the
    process of expanding a pilot statewide to provide a dollar-for-
    dollar match on SNAP recipients' purchases of local fruits and
    vegetables. But, I have said in the past the most important
    thing we can do to improve access to nutritious food is to
    increase the current SNAP benefit, and provide low-income
    Americans with more money to purchase nutritious foods.
        Now, Ms. Hess, your testimony makes a very strong point
    about the need for food to be affordable for those who are low-
    income. What do you think the impact could be on your farmers
    and on your customers if we simply increase the SNAP benefit
    overall, and what do you think would happen to your farmers and
    customers if we cut the SNAP benefit?
        Ms. Hess. The impact would be profound, and we have an
    example here in D.C. that demonstrates it. The Produce Plus
    Program is a D.C. benefit for low-income people, $10 free
    fruits and vegetable voucher. And we have lines around the
    block, 90, 100 people waiting to get $10 in free fruits and
    vegetables every day at the mobile market when the program is
    going.
        The base sales each year are about $22,000, but the Produce
    Plus sales are $77,000, and we turn people away all the time
    because we run out of vouchers. There is a massive demand for
    this stuff. And what people need are the resources to be able
    to access it.
        The profound impact that increasing the amounts of
    affordable and ubiquitous healthy food could have on public
    health is staggering. Right? We are looking at $\1/2\ trillion
    that we are spending on treating diseases that we don't have to
    have, they are caused by the food that we eat. So if we change
    the food that everybody eats, and I am not just talking about
    low-income people, I am talking about all of us. What, 39
    states, 40 percent of the people are overweight and obese. I am
    overweight. It is hard to eat healthy. And if you add on top of
    that the barriers to access, like you live 5 miles from a
    grocery store and you don't have a car, and you don't have any
    money at the end of the month after you have paid for your
    diabetes medication, I don't know how you would expect to
    change anything.
        And here is what is so important about it. I know everybody
    is on different sides of this issue politically, but people
    can't parent well and raise happy, healthy children who are
    ready to learn, and you can't work well if you are hungry, if
    you are wondering where your next meal is coming from, or if
    you had to spend your lunch money taking a cab because you were
    late for work that morning. It is super frustrating to me that
    this fundamental thing that is the sort of basis of all human
    health is even a debate.
        Mr. McGovern. Right.
        Ms. Hess. If you cut anything, it should not be peoples'
    food.
        Mr. McGovern. Yes. And I like your statement about pay the
    farmer or pay the doctor. One of the problems with the way we
    budget up here in Congress is that we all have our little areas
    of jurisdiction. And so your point about the fact that healthy,
    nutritious food actually is like medicine, it keeps us well,
    can prevent diabetes, which is a lifelong illness, it could
    prevent heart disease, it could prevent obesity. And so by
    doing this right, there are all these avoidable healthcare
    costs that you don't have to pay for. Kids who go to school,
    who are hungry, don't learn. There is a cost to that. Workers
    who go to work, who are hungry aren't as productive. There is a
    huge cost here, and sometimes we are looking at our little
    narrow area here, but the cost of hunger and food insecurity in
    this country is enormous.
        I gather from your testimony that you believe that access
    to healthy food is much more important than teaching people
    about healthy food. Maybe you can tell me a little bit more
    about that.
        Ms. Hess. Yes.
        Mr. McGovern. Not that the teaching help really was bad, I
    am just simply saying that we can teach all we want, but if you
    don't have access to it, so what.
        Ms. Hess. What you said. Ideally, these things go hand in
    hand, and this answers also Mr. Scott's question. The first
    building block that you have to have is a lot of affordable,
    really high-quality food that people actually want to eat. The
    next step then is making sure that people know what to do with
    it and people get exposed to it. We do a lot of taste tests at
    the mobile market, we do cooking demos, we have a cookbook that
    we give to our low-income customers so that they are inspired
    to cook at home. But I have to tell you, just focusing on
    cooking skills is pretty shortsighted because you can give
    everybody all the skills they want, and even send them home
    with some knives and cutting boards, but if they don't have
    anything to cut, you haven't changed a thing.
        One of my customers who is a Navy veteran and has a 3 year
    old, she turns off the gas in her house on the summers to save
    $30 so that she can continue to eat well, and she eats mostly
    raw fruits and vegetables through the summer.
        So the chaos and the difficulty in being poor should not be
    underestimated, and it starts by making food affordable, high
    quality, and ubiquitous.
        Mr. McGovern. Right. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Gibbs, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gibbs. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And you are
    right, this is a very interesting panel. Of all the hearings we
    have had on food stamps, it is--and I love it because the
    technology, and former Chairman Lucas was talking about as well
    as former Chairman Collin Peterson, about living at the end of
    the world. I can see Amazon delivering food to these areas by
    drone, so hopefully we can get FAA regulations so that it
    works.
        But what I want to talk a little bit about is the
    technology part that interests me. A few months ago, we had the
    Auditor of the State of Ohio in to testify. He did an audit in
    Ohio and what was going on in the SNAP Program. And we found
    out there is some fraud. I don't think it is a widespread
    problem, but there is some, and so we tried to address it as
    best as we can. And we found out things like there were issues
    about some people had huge balances and weren't using it, so
    that was tying money up. We also discovered in one of our
    hearings that if we could go to crediting the cards twice a
    month instead of once a month, that might help the food
    recipients with their cash flow and budgeting.
        My questions to Mr. French and Mr. Lovelace is, and I know
    Mr. Lovelace talked about the database, and that technology.
    The technology ought to help us in real-time catch instances
    where there could be fraud. And we have had testimony that some
    of the retailers can be fraudulent and we had testimony in his
    auditor's report where somebody had come in the 1st of the
    month and spent the exact amount of dollars, like $200, and
    then go 8 minutes later to another retailer and spent another
    $200. Every month it is very odd. I can't go to the grocery
    store and spend the same amount to the penny every month. And
    so I guess you want to comment a little bit about the
    technology? Could you flag those in real time, just kind of
    like you can do with credit cards now. If I use my credit card
    and it doesn't look like my normal expenditures, I will get an
    e-mail from my credit card company asking if this is me, so can
    you? I don't know if you want to expand on that. Because you
    hear about technology, people get concerned maybe the
    possibility of more fraud, but it is the other way around. So
    go ahead.
        Mr. French. Sure. Like I mentioned earlier, we absolutely
    share the Committee's focus and prioritization on preventing
    fraud in the SNAP Program. At Amazon we take customer trust and
    information security incredibly seriously. And so if given the
    opportunity to participate in the USDA's pilot program, we
    absolutely look forward to the opportunity to leveraging the
    same world-class engineering that we use across Amazon to
    protect information security to the SNAP Program on Amazon.
        Tough to comment on some of the exact specifics and the
    specific areas you were mentioning, but it is absolutely----
        Mr. Gibbs. Well, I want to ask you a question. A thought
    came to my mind. Because my understanding, the state runs the
    programs for the USDA, right? And so somebody in Ohio goes in
    and uses their SNAP card, and it looks weird, the state has to
    flag it, the question may be that the state is not doing their
    job. How would Amazon or your outfit interact with the
    databases, or maybe you want to talk about that?
        Mr. Lovelace. My understanding is the processors for SNAP
    are very much like a merchant account for a credit card. So
    there is this layer of merchant account processors that verify
    security, all their types of fraudulent flagging systems, which
    are real time. That is why sometimes when you make a purchase
    and you put the wrong address, just normally with a credit
    card, the transaction isn't approved. So there are all sorts of
    best practices that exist today that can be applied to the SNAP
    Program which will allow for a lot of security around that.
        And to your point, obviously, there is understandable
    concern about fraudulent use and abuse, but I believe that
    there is going to be dramatically less of that, given the way
    that there is so much transparency and reporting using a
    database-driven technology, like e-commerce.
        And, we looked at a study of a family in a food desert in
    downtown Los Angeles, for example, not people on SNAP but just
    in a food desert, and 90 percent of the grocery purchases are
    happening at a little bodega or liquor store, or a fast-food
    market. So what we are dealing with here is one of the beauties
    about being able to ship groceries nationally to people, be
    able to provide that, is that we can eliminate that in a very
    dramatic swoop.
        Mr. Gibbs. Great. I think regulation, legislation needs to
    try to keep up with the technology, because we can actually
    make real improvements and serve people that really need the
    help.
        So I yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Ms. DelBene, 5 minutes.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of
    you for being with us today. I appreciate it. And I am very
    interested in this pilot and the possibilities that it can
    bring to make sure that we are providing healthier, fresh,
    local food to a broader population, and definitely folks who
    have been under-served.
        You definitely can buy anything online, and there is no
    reason that that can't be true for SNAP participants as well,
    and we can learn a lot from CSAs that exist today that are
    providing some similar services. And definitely bringing these
    types of foods to more rural, traditional food deserts is
    certainly worth exploring, and so I appreciate the work that
    you are doing.
        I had a question for you, Mr. French. And thank you for
    being here today from Seattle. I read in your testimony, and I
    know you mentioned this in your opening statement, that you
    believe the PIN-based technology being used for SNAP EBT is not
    necessarily more secure than other available technologies. And
    so I was wondering wouldn't that change in the authentication
    method mean we would have to revamp the systems that are
    currently being used by the states?
        Mr. French. I am actually probably not the best person to
    go into that in a ton of detail. It is a good question, but let
    us follow up with you on that. It is a good question.
        Ms. DelBene. And is that something that generally would be
    supported in terms of the change of how that system would
    work----
        Mr. French. I am sorry, can you say it again?
        Ms. DelBene.--by others? Well, I was kind of asking others
    if folks thought the PIN-based technology or changing that to
    something that is more universal would be something that is
    important to others. Does anyone have a----
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes, so the delay in bringing SNAP online has
    been the processors and the ability to do the PIN-based
    transactions online. That is what our understanding is, in the
    communications with USDA officials over the last 2 years.
        We transparently haven't heard a lot of discussion about
    moving away from the PIN system, but rather, the focus has been
    how do we make sure that there are processors in place that can
    handle the PIN-based system online, in a way that people like
    us can interact with in a real-time way. So there hasn't been a
    lot of discussion from our conversations with USDA about moving
    away from a PIN-based system.
        We are not necessarily saying that we shouldn't move to
    more standard-based credit card transaction processes, but, our
    approach to it has been we are totally willing to absorb and
    build a special user interface just to support PIN-based
    transactions.
        Ms. DelBene. Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay, did anyone else
    want to say something? I couldn't tell. Go ahead.
        Mr. Beal. If I could inject just a thought, and we are a
    brick-and-mortar retailer, but I would say with regard to PIN-
    based transactions, I know from our business, which is regular
    business with credit cards, our amount of fraud has increased
    by about 12 times, and I have also shared those concerns with
    other grocers, a large grocer out of St. Louis, because we do
    not have PIN-based transactions now on general credit cards.
    EMV card, and I know we are getting off subject, but with
    dealing with security with credit card transactions, the lack
    of a PIN-based system for credit cards has greatly increased
    our fraud in a brick-and-mortar store. So it is hard for me to
    envision as a grocer how it would be more secure without
    something like that, as just an anecdotal response.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you.
        Ms. Hess. If I may. Farmers' markets are really hobbled by
    the need to have that, it is the MarketLink, it is a PIN-based
    program. They cost about $500 each, and so typically, a
    farmers' market will have one, and anyone who is using SNAP
    goes to the market manager, they run their SNAP cards, they get
    tokens, they go to the farmers. There are a lot of problems
    with that program. If we can handle the security issues and get
    it so we can run EBT cards directly off of a Square, or a
    similar card reader, that really just opens up farmers' markets
    to a lot more SNAP transactions and a lot more healthy food for
    a lot of people, and it saves market managers a lot of trouble
    and cost. I spend about $100 a month just on my data fee for
    the MarketLink.
        Ms. DelBene. Yes. Okay, thank you.
        And I know folks talked a little bit about cell service,
    but I also think broadband access, WiFi access can be very
    difficult for many folks in rural areas, or folks who don't
    have a reliable online connection anywhere, or even technology
    available. Do you have a sense of how much that would impact
    access for potential SNAP recipients who may want to use these
    types of services, but don't regularly have any type of
    connection to do so?
        Mr. Lovelace. The data we have looked at is that 75 percent
    of low-income communities do have a smartphone. Obviously, that
    is not perfect, but that is pretty profound. Whereas, broadband
    Internet access or desktop computers have dramatically lower
    rates. So while I believe in getting broadband infrastructure
    to everybody, the practical realities and the time to market is
    so dramatically more expensive than it is to increase high-
    speed smartphone, cell phone access.
        Ms. DelBene. Yes.
        Mr. Lovelace. So in terms of solving that problem, not only
    for this issue, but just broader educational access issues, the
    fastest way is going to be Third World developing countries who
    just skipped the hard infrastructure and have gone straight to
    cellphone. So I think that that is the fastest way for us to
    solve this problem ubiquitously.
        Ms. DelBene. Yes. Okay, thank you. My time has expired. I
    yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Crawford [presiding.] Thank you. I recognize myself for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Beal raised a topic that we probably don't have enough
    time to talk about in the 5 minutes that I have to address
    this, but I want to start a conversation about brick-and-mortar
    stores and how they differ from the online vendors. What role
    might you play in enhancing access? For example, in my
    district, it is very rural, we have, obviously, small towns,
    but even remote areas I would classify not just rural but
    remote. And so a scenario, for example, a town of 3,000, they
    have a grocery store, but around that town of 3,000, 15-20
    miles away or more, small towns, a town of 300, and the best
    they can hope for is a convenience store. And so as a grocer
    that occupies that space in the small town of 3,000, could you
    become a distributor? Does it fit your model to go out to those
    small towns in a refrigerated truck and be able to deliver non-
    processed foods? Because as we have heard, and I know this to
    be the case, our healthcare statistics are on an upward
    trajectory in rural America. And the irony is that, in my
    district, for example, we are one of the most productive
    agriculturally in the nation, and yet we are in a food desert.
    And it has to do with access to non-processed food.
        So if you would, kind of go into some detail about how you
    might be able to fit in that role to sort of serve as a
    distributor.
        Mr. Beal. Thank you. I will tell you that we are currently
    doing that today.
        Mr. Crawford. Good.
        Mr. Beal. We supply our local produce to other grocers
    around the Midwest, not just the Kansas City area. We sell
    local produce to grocers in Springfield, Missouri, 3 hours
    away, about 200 miles. We sell local produce to grocers up in
    Nebraska, over 3 hours away. And so it is a very good question,
    and for us particularly, it wouldn't be a challenge because we
    are currently doing that, and we see ourselves in that role. We
    distribute to our stores and to other stores over $5 million
    worth of locally grown produce every single year, and it is
    growing.
        I mentioned in my presentation that the distribution system
    is critical, and in visiting with Ms. Hess, on the panel, that
    was one of the questions I asked her before we started. But
    that distribution system is important, but we are set up to do
    that. And so it does provide a very important role in the
    distribution of these benefits to other potential markets.
        Mr. Crawford. Well, one of the benefits I get from being on
    the latter end of the questioning is some of the dialogue that
    has taken place up to this point. Mr. Peterson mentioned this,
    in the remote areas, and obviously, we have talked about
    Internet access, broadband being an issue in rural communities,
    and, Mr. Lovelace, you addressed that with regard to enhanced
    cell phone infrastructure. And one of the things that Mr. Lucas
    addressed was the seasonality associated with those fresh foods
    is also a challenge. Grocers are in a unique position to
    address that, as you mentioned, using greenhouses and sourcing
    beyond just the local region. How does that play into your
    distribution model?
        Mr. Beal. Well, we currently purchase produce from around
    the country. Okay, so we will bring in produce using common
    carriers from California, from Arizona, New Mexico, Georgia,
    and Florida, and obviously, that isn't local produce to us, but
    we source specialty products for our stores to make them a
    class above our competition. That is kind of one of the things
    that we try to do. But, having a facility to be able to do
    that, having trucks to distribute is critical. We are not our
    primary supplier to our stores for our groceries, our center
    store, because we have a wholesaler to do that, but what we
    have found in working with our wholesaler, who is in excess of
    a $10 billion company, I know that is peanuts when it comes to
    the Amazons of the world, but what we have learned, it is
    oftentimes more difficult the bigger the entity is to source
    from local because, first, the local provider can't provide
    enough product for the big boys to service all of their
    customer needs. And so there has to be kind of matching of the
    growers with the markets that they serve to make it as
    efficient as possible.
        Walmart would have a very difficult time of providing local
    produce, because there are only slots in a warehouse that are
    available for perishable products, because they have to be
    refrigerated and stuff. Not to say they can't do it, but the
    challenge is a little bit greater. It is for our wholesaler,
    because they have tried to roll out a program. And that is
    where we fit into that role much more uniquely than what they
    are able to.
        Mr. Crawford. Real quick, I have 20 seconds. Were there any
    tax incentives that facilitated that decision for you to
    implement that model, or was it just something, a naturally
    occurring business phenomenon?
        Mr. Beal. No, there were no tax incentives. It was
    consistent with our model of focusing on fresh and local, and
    working with our local farmers and ranchers. As I mentioned, we
    had been working with them for over 15 years to start with, so
    it was a natural transition and expansion of the program for
    that.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I appreciate it. My time has
    expired.
        I recognize Ms. Adams for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of
    our panelists for being here today and for your insight.
        Many communities throughout the 12th District in North
    Carolina that I represent are located in food deserts,
    resulting in many of my constituents not being able to purchase
    a variety of fresh and nutritious foods from a local grocery
    store. I did want to just add that just a week and a half ago
    we opened in my district, in a food desert, the Renaissance Co-
    op, which is now owned and operated by the community. It is
    very, very successful. For 18 years, we did not have a grocery
    store there. It was an abandoned strip shopping center. It has
    all been renovated, and it is a great project, great fruits and
    vegetables there. As a matter of fact, last week I shopped
    there myself. But that is one example of what can happen.
        But for those who are able to afford a smartphone or
    Internet access, online purchasing of food using SNAP benefits
    does have the potential to offset some of the negative
    consequences of not having a grocery store in a neighborhood. I
    do look forward to USDA's progress in the pilot program. I hope
    the Department and food retailers will continue to develop new
    ways to reach customers in under-served communities, such as
    many that I have in North Carolina. As a matter of fact, in
    Charlotte, which is the area that I am going to be representing
    coming January, we have interest and some concerns about many
    of the food deserts there.
        But, as we conclude our 18th hearing, or 16th, whatever it
    has been, on the SNAP Program, I would also like to take a
    moment to remind Members that the SNAP Program can only be as
    effective as how much we choose to fund it. So that is really
    important. Any new requirements to increase financial
    incentives for purchasing fresh foods or to expand the
    assistance and finding a job-training program must be paid for,
    and not become unfunded mandates on state and county
    governments, because they are having difficulties as well.
        My first question, Mr. Lovelace, how can retailers reach
    SNAP participants that do not have a smartphone or Internet
    access? Are you looking at telephone as maybe a possibility?
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes, it is a good question. Honestly, I don't
    have a good answer for it. We are actively working with, and
    communicating with, cell phone providers and broadband cable
    providers to piggyback on programs that they have targeting
    low-income communities that don't have Internet access. So that
    is something that we spend time doing out of our Giving
    department. And beyond that, I don't have a better response to
    your question.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. Mr. Beal, the cost of
    produce has been identified as a major barrier for improving
    access to fresh fruits and vegetables, particularly in the 12th
    District in Charlotte that I represent. How has partnering with
    other public and private entities enabled your stores in Kansas
    City to be able to pay for the in-store credit or earnings that
    a SNAP participant gains each time they buy produce through the
    Double Up Food Bucks Program?
        Mr. Beal. Well, the program, and the first year of the
    pilot year was funded by an outside third-party philanthropist.
    That was 2015. And working with our local partners, three of
    whom are nonprofit entities, they applied for a grant from the
    USDA to expand the pilot program to all of our 14 Price Chopper
    stores that we own in 2016. So we pay market price for our
    local produce to our local farmers because they deserve a fair
    price, and so it is on part with what we would be paying for
    produce from our wholesaler anywhere else that we would obtain
    the product. But the funding mechanism for the program is in
    part through a USDA grant that one of our local partners has
    provided for 2016.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you.
        Mr. French, have you been in conversations with USDA about
    effective applications for online payment transactions or other
    elements that should be included in any application that is
    developed to interface between the food retailer, USDA, for
    processing these SNAP purchases online?
        Mr. French. Sure. We have been in active discussions with
    the USDA for some time now. They have been a great partner
    throughout this process. We appreciate the rigorous and
    thoughtful approach they are taking to the pilot program. It is
    obviously quite complex, and so we appreciate, again, the
    thoughtful approach they are taking.
        The PIN-based solution, as we have talked about a couple of
    times now, again, our perspective is we share the focus and
    prioritization on preventing fraud in the SNAP Program, but we
    think there are new technologies that are superior to PIN-based
    solutions for doing so.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you. I yield back.
        The Chairman [presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Allen, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for
    being here today and sharing this information.
        One of the previous hearings, I believe with the
    representatives from USDA about fraud, I suggested something
    like a picture ID EBT card, and the response was, well, that is
    too expensive. As we address fraud, as far as the PIN numbers,
    I mean is that the same kind of pushback you are getting is
    that, hey, that is cost-prohibitive, yet how do we actually
    control this fraud? I mean what do you think is holding up this
    whole process as far as fraud and abuse goes?
        Mr. Lovelace. Are you talking about just credit card
    transactions in general?
        Mr. Allen. Yes, and the PIN numbers and that. I mean what
    is the real push? Is that the folks who distribute--well, USDA
    distributes the EBT cards, so why can't we do a PIN number
    system, I guess is what----
        Mr. Lovelace. I mean we are going to do a PIN system.
        Mr. Allen. Okay.
        Mr. Lovelace. That is how it is going to go down for the
    first pilot, for sure.
        Mr. Allen. Right.
        Mr. Lovelace. It is a PIN-based system. And the reason why
    the implementation to get SNAP online was delayed in the first
    place was that the processors that typically handle these
    transactions for SNAP, one of the major processors pulled out
    of the SNAP Program altogether.
        Mr. Allen. Okay.
        Mr. Lovelace. So that caused a huge delay. But everything
    that I understand from our conversation about integrating with
    SNAP to be able to accept transactions online has been around
    using the existing PIN-based program online.
        Mr. Allen. Okay.
        Mr. Lovelace. Again, we are not against other more
    efficient processes, but we haven't been pushing for that.
    Knowing how controversial the program and where the concerns
    are, our goal is to be as frictionless as possible, and try to
    just make the existing system as improved as possible.
        Mr. Allen. Yes. Where we have these food deserts, for
    example, and this is a problem we have to address, and you are
    talking about addressing it with online and then, of course,
    deliveries. Have we looked at working through not-for-profit
    food distribution? Mr. Beal, you talked a little bit about
    that, but in every community there probably has to be a food
    bank or something that you could distribute through, that is
    not-for-profit, that would reduce the cost of shipping and all
    these other things that might add onto the cost of providing
    for this program? Yes, sir.
        Mr. Beal. If you don't mind if I answer that, but we
    currently do provide produce to a couple of nonprofit entities,
    one of which specifically addresses the needs of the food
    desert community in downtown Kansas City, with local produce.
    And so we work with a couple of different entities towards that
    end.
        Mr. Allen. Yes. Would that be a possibility as far as
    online is concerned? In other words, you would get the order
    online and then you would have a local not-for-profit, you
    could say, ``Okay, this is what we have.''
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes, we do that currently.
        Mr. Allen. You do? Okay.
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes. We did a program with a church community
    group in Flint where we have been donating groceries. So it is
    something that we think about. We raised money last holiday
    season for two million meals with Feeding America and their
    local food bank. We work with over 150 national nonprofits, and
    it is something that we are very focused on.
        Mr. Allen. Good.
        Mr. Lovelace. And there is a lot of great work being done
    by brick-and-mortar and nonprofits on the ground, and so our
    goal is to be good partners to that.
        Mr. Allen. Yes. Is Amazon doing the same thing?
        Mr. French. So we are constantly inventing on behalf of
    customers. That extends to the various delivery methods we have
    for delivering products to customers, our extended delivery
    service through our Amazon Fresh Program, and our Amazon
    Lockers Program are both examples of where we have innovated in
    the delivery method for how we get products to customers. If we
    are accepted to participate in the pilot, we absolutely would
    look forward to engage with the USDA on other ways that we
    could innovate and invent on behalf of customers and SNAP
    recipients, in particular.
        Mr. Allen. Okay. And the biggest complaint that I get from
    my constituents is the nutrition issue. When you are in a
    checkout line and people say, ``My goodness, what is going on
    here.'' If you can conquer that issue, it will make this
    program--we know diabetes, we know these things are costing the
    healthcare system. Yes?
        Ms. Newport. I was just going to share that our initiative
    addresses a couple of the things that you are saying. One being
    that we actually devise a choice of food packages, and all of
    the foods are nutrient-dense. And then we also, in partnership
    with Feed the Children, are able to offer this benefit monthly
    at approximately \1/3\ to \1/2\ of the cost of buying it in the
    retail market.
        Mr. Allen. Okay. Well, thank you. And please keep working
    on that.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Costa, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members
    of the Committee. I apologize for not being able to participate
    in this hearing this morning, but I have had a hearing with
    Natural Resources occurring at the same time. But I do want to
    make a statement with regards to the many issues that have been
    raised as it relates to the SNAP Program, and the many hearings
    that this Committee and Subcommittee have held over the last
    year.
        Clearly, we have set the table as we prepare in the next
    Congress to look at the reauthorization of the farm bill, and
    the SNAP Program is an important part of the reauthorization of
    the farm bill. And I do have concerns about what policy
    decisions we will make. Certainly, we can look at efforts to
    improve the SNAP Program, and I would be willing to participate
    in that effort, but I would reject a proposal in the next farm
    bill to dramatically cut the SNAP Program. My district is
    struggling, and cuts to the program would be devastating and
    directly equate to taking food out of the mouths of children
    and families in my district.
        It is a bit of an irony in contrast that I have significant
    wealth in my district and significant poverty, and we happen to
    be an area where we grow so much of the food; \1/2\ the
    nation's fruits and vegetables, but yet notwithstanding that
    agricultural productivity, too often the food doesn't get to
    the place that it needs to be. The SNAP Program is an important
    bridge of that effort.
        The Bureau of Labor Statistics has indicated that we have
    twice the unemployment levels of other parts of the country. As
    it stands now, I have over 50,000, 50,000, think about that,
    households in my district that receive benefits. Seventy-nine
    percent of those households have a child under the age of 18;
    15 percent have one or more person that are 60 years or older.
    This is just the facts. And, of course, the drought conditions
    that we have had for the last 6 years in the San Joaquin
    Valley, in which we have gotten zero water allocation for a
    host of years, has further compounded the problems that are
    being faced where you have people who have no jobs because
    fields are unplanted, and jobs are, therefore, at a premium.
        So clearly, taking away food from people who need it is not
    a solution toward any improvements or efforts to deal with the
    SNAP Program in the next farm bill.
        One of those areas that we had testimony here in the
    Committee this year, is a way in which we can deal with, and
    that is the Fresno Bridge Academy. It is one of several
    programs around the country that is asking to take advantage of
    the SNAP Employment and Training pilot program to reduce
    dependency. Well, how do we reduce dependency? That is an
    important goal. In this program, under the Bridge Academy, we
    saw 77 percent of the participating SNAP clients come in
    unemployed that were underemployed, but 18 months later after
    they were part of this program, 83 percent of the clients had
    obtained employment or job advancement, and 32 percent had
    achieved complete self-reliance. So it is these kinds of
    efforts that I think we need to work on to develop and innovate
    across the country. The Fresno Bridge Academy is designed
    specifically to truly help people move to independence.
        And, notwithstanding the divide that we have in our country
    today, one thing every Member on this Committee can agree upon
    is that we want to make it more effective for people to be able
    to become self-sufficient and to feed their families. And, we
    can look forward to working together in the next Congress, as
    we reauthorize the next farm bill, on how we can bring together
    good bipartisan solutions that will do just that.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back the balance
    of my time.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Thompson, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks to all the
    witnesses for being here.
        I am going to start with Ms. Newport. Has there been any
    problem with product delivery, particularly in terms of
    freshness of the items delivered?
        Ms. Newport. The items that are delivered are actually
    shelf-stable, for the most part, and so we have not had too
    many problems with the delivery, and we made adjustments where
    we needed to. Sometimes the address is a challenge, but for the
    most part, the foods are shelf-stable and so that has worked
    out well.
        Mr. Thompson. Very good.
        Mr. Beal, would this sort of program that you referred to
    be successful in retailers with significant use of self-
    checkout systems?
        Mr. Beal. Yes, sir. The self-checkout systems can be
    programmed to provide a message to the consumer of both the
    Double Up Bucks earnings that that consumer has on that
    shopping trip, as well as what they have available to use on a
    subsequent shopping trip that would allow them to use some or
    all of that. There wouldn't be a problem with that.
        Mr. Thompson. All right.
        Mr. Lovelace, how do you define low-income individuals in
    your organization, and if the utilization of the online space
    for SNAP recipients moves forward, how do you plan to handle
    the membership fee that comes with the Thrive models, since, in
    regulation, you really can't treat SNAP recipients different
    than other customers?
        Mr. Lovelace. We have talked about that with the USDA
    extensively, and for every paid membership, we give away a
    membership to a low-income family; a veteran, a teacher, a
    student. So we are comfortable waiving the membership fee for
    all SNAP participants across the board, and that is something
    that we have discussed and doesn't seem to be a problematic
    issue in terms of implementation of the program. And, the way
    that we think about poverty levels is anybody who is double the
    poverty level qualifies for our low-income program. These are
    families across the country, they are veterans, they are
    teachers and students, and they apply directly through us and/
    or through a network of nonprofits that we work with.
        Mr. Thompson. Okay, very good. USDA has obviously, well, I
    don't want to assume, that is a dangerous thing to do, but they
    have indicated to your organization that they would be
    satisfied with waiving that fee?
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes.
        Mr. Thompson. Okay.
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes, there is, obviously, that provision is
    in there for making sure that people aren't discriminated
    against, and obviously, we think that is a good thing, but in
    this case, this is something that they understood and was not a
    problem for them.
        Mr. Thompson. Okay, very good.
        Mr. French, how long does it take to have food delivered
    from these programs, and does it take longer to deliver to
    rural areas than it does urban, and is there a freshness
    concern when delivering to rural areas?
        Mr. French. Sure. We have a variety of different programs
    and formats that we use to deliver grocery products to
    customers. Like I mentioned earlier, we deliver non-perishable
    groceries to customers nationwide, and then through our Amazon
    Fresh service we deliver full-line grocery store, but including
    perishable items, in a number of regions throughout the
    country.
        Across those different programs and formats, we do have
    different value propositions with different shipping speeds as
    well. The Amazon Fresh service in particular does offer same-
    day and next-day delivery of grocery products, which is
    obviously an important part of ensuring that the products
    arrive to the customers without freshness being an issue.
        Mr. Thompson. I may have my partners mixed up. Does Amazon
    work with the U.S. Postal Service in terms of some of the--like
    6 day delivery? Is that a part of the process that you use for
    delivery? Well, not 6 day, but 7 day, actually. I saw one of
    the Postal trucks on Sunday in one of my neighborhoods, and I
    assumed that they were probably delivering for Amazon or
    someone like that.
        Mr. French. Sure. Yes, we work with a number of different
    delivery providers, including the USPS.
        Mr. Thompson. Okay, very good.
        And, Ms. Hess. Ms. Hess, you work to change the eating
    habits of individuals. Is there an educational component to the
    mobile market model, and if so, can you walk us through what
    that looks like?
        Ms. Hess. Sure, thank you. We do cooking demonstrations, we
    do taste tests, we do some cooking classes with community
    groups as the opportunities come up, but again, if you don't
    have that in lockstep with increased access and affordable
    food, and really high-quality offerings and great customer
    service, you don't get to change much.
        We also teach little kids on our farm about healthy eating
    and the origins of healthy food. And we find that they go home
    and tell their parents, who then come out to the mobile market.
        Mr. Thompson. Very good. Seems like the younger you get
    them, the better.
        Ms. Hess. I think it is. And I just want to say one thing,
    as you guys look at SNAP, going forward, to cut it is sort of
    the very definition of penny wise and pound foolish. It is
    going to cost us all in the end.
        Mr. Thompson. Okay, thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Ms. Hess, I couldn't agree with you more, and while we
    are having this hearing, and I appreciate the Chairman
    continuing to have SNAP hearings in the Committee, finding the
    balances so that we are innovative and thinking about ways,
    particularly, to garner better access, not just to food in
    general but healthy food that has the educational components
    and choice in areas where we have significant food deserts.
        Ms. Newport, like Oklahoma, New Mexico is incredibly rural,
    incredibly challenged currently in their getting hungry
    families fed. We still have the hungriest families in the
    country. Our children, when I first was elected, were the
    hungriest children in the country. We have done a little bit
    better. But interestingly enough, you are at 25 percent, we are
    at 27 percent of our children are hungry, and right now USDA is
    investigating the state for SNAP fraud. And when we are talking
    about fraud, we want to make sure beneficiaries and families,
    individuals in the community aren't doing things--and providers
    and contractors, that here I have a state that is falsifying
    records to deny access to some of the hungriest families in the
    country. All right?
        Striking these balances are very important, and making sure
    that we don't end up in an environment where we just create
    more hunger, and create newer generations of unhealthy
    populations, that makes no sense to me, when we have a benefit
    and a policy that could really make a difference.
        Ms. Newport, what would you suggest for a state like mine
    to create the infrastructure for programs like Packed Promise
    that would get us to the rural delivery aspects, better
    choices, and get us started in an environment where we are
    embracing the benefits of a SNAP investment to feeding hungry
    families, and to creating educated consumers for the future?
        Ms. Newport. Well, certainly, looking for opportunities to
    at least pilot some of those concepts and see where they are
    successful, and have a rigorous evaluation so that we really
    know what is worth doing, and we are not spending time on
    something that is not effective. I think also just keeping the
    conversations going. I look forward to talking with folks like
    Amazon and others who are sending out fresh products and doing
    it effectively to these areas that we both know are so remote,
    and have so little to pick from. We just keep pressing forward
    with examples of how to do it, and showing where it works best.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. I would be happy to have anybody else on
    the panel respond. I appreciate some of the questions about
    what kind of options, choices, are we really getting fresh
    produce, because some of the programs that are widely available
    in a market, and how we are seeing studies that if you hire a
    dietician or a nutritionist, actually folks are spending much
    more wisely, particularly with SNAP benefits, in these
    communities, but also coming back and following through with
    preparing healthy means. And we are seeing an increase in
    spending overall in markets that do this, outside of the SNAP
    beneficiaries. But in rural areas, you don't have those kinds
    of markets. We have a lot of local farmers that are looking for
    ways, and they are already getting lots of support from USDA,
    but creating this infrastructure where all of these ideas
    coalesce in a way that is meaningful. Are there other things
    that we ought to be doing in New Mexico?
        Ms. Hess. If I may, there is a real need in this nation for
    strengthening the regional food systems, and instead of relying
    on people, which I love, but people flying food in from all
    over. People should be eating more and more locally. It is an
    important issue on the terms of national security as well. All
    it will take is one typhoon or one dirty bomb in the Port of LA
    to shut down our food system for a week or longer. And so it is
    important that localities now are building regional food
    systems that can support the food needs of people immediately
    around them.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Okay.
        Yes, sir?
        Mr. Beal. I would submit that the model that we have put
    together, working with our partners in the Kansas City metro
    area, fulfills a lot of what you have requested.
        One of the partners is the University of Kansas Medical
    Center, and so they provide dietary training to SNAP recipients
    on the Kansas side of the line, because Kansas is willing to
    work with them. Missouri wasn't willing to work with them,
    wasn't willing to submit to those individual SNAP customers
    notification about the program and stuff. We also work with the
    Health Foundation of Greater Kansas City, another nonprofit.
        They are providing healthier eating choices and education
    for those consumers, along with our dieticians that we have in
    our stores.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you. My time is up. I just think
    these balances are incredibly important to recognize in this
    Committee. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mr. LaMalfa, 5 minutes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
    my tardiness with competing committees here. So thank you to
    the panel for coming.
        I agree the online retail and delivery system has great
    potential. I hearken back to when milk was delivered to your
    doorstep back in the day, I actually thought it was weird to go
    to the store to buy milk. As a farmer, we go through that thing
    where people think food comes from the store. I always thought
    milk came from the back step. So I know better. That is dairy.
        But the platforms actually the USDA is being urged to look
    into, I am concerned with Thrive, for example. This is for Mr.
    Lovelace. You do have a whole page dedicated to being non-GMO,
    okay, that Thrive is passionately committed to creating a world
    that is free of GMOs. Okay. It is a controversial subject, I
    get it, but much potential around the world for helping with
    hunger on greater yields, et cetera, less chemical use. Much of
    what comes from these websites is non-perishable foods, so we
    are not going to see as much fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, and
    deemed as the most nutritious, with packaged items, et cetera.
    I guess where I might run up with a bit of a problem is that
    when we are talking just straight nutrition, that it isn't
    solidly proven that organic or non-GMO is more nutritious. It
    might be grown in a way that is more acceptable to folks, in
    some fashion there, but we do know that there is much more cost
    with that. So making our dollars go as far as possible, giving
    consumers the choices on price, whether they are concerned or
    not with something being GMO, we might harm ourselves a little
    bit if we are going to go only down that path. So if you would
    comment on that, Mr. Lovelace, a little bit, and how does your
    outfit decide the food that you categorize as SNAP-approved,
    and then the affordability of it, going forward, how do you
    arrive at that, please?
        Mr. Lovelace. Sure. I first acknowledge that the GMO debate
    is a controversial one. And we are not explicitly against GMOs.
    I think that there is a lot of competing data and it is very
    early in the process. I think one of the----
        Mr. LaMalfa. If I may, if a webpage does, indeed, say
    passionately committed to creating a world free of GMOs that
    is----
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes. We are committed to being seen as a
    place where you know when you buy food it doesn't have GMOs.
    And the challenge that I have personally with GMOs today is----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, your company would be free of GMOs? It
    says here a world free of it.
        Mr. Lovelace. The problem that I have with GMOs is that
    they are being sprayed with massive amounts of glyphosate,
    which studies are showing are coming into--90 percent of
    Americans are testing positive for glyphosate poisoning. So it
    is a very complex issue. I think there are opportunities where
    GMOs can be producing higher-yield foods with lower water.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Say that again please. The GMOs being sprayed
    with----
        Mr. Lovelace. With glyphosate. It is 90----
        Mr. LaMalfa. That doesn't define a GMO. A GMO is
    genetically modified in the field.
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. What you do to it after it comes from the
    field is something----
        Mr. Lovelace. Yes, so the food crops are being engineered
    to withstand glyphosate, which is an herbicide, and so that
    enters into the food stream, and 90 percent of Americans are
    testing positive for glyphosate.
        There is all sorts of early data. We feel like it is too
    early to be able to say definitively that it is safe to have
    GMOs in the food supply. That is our position on it.
        Mr. LaMalfa. So how do you decide what is going to be
    categorized as a SNAP-approved food within your----
        Mr. Lovelace. I mean there are very strict guidelines for
    what those are. And so we look very carefully at the USDA
    recommendations on that, and every category of product that
    is----
        Mr. LaMalfa. So you align with USDA regs?
        Mr. Lovelace. It is absolutely aligned with the USDA regs.
    There is no----
        Mr. LaMalfa. And how about affordability?
        Mr. Lovelace. Say again.
        Mr. LaMalfa. How do you do things in an affordable way?
    Keep the food as affordable as possible as well as----
        Mr. Lovelace. Well, we buy directly from the brands. We cut
    out all the distributors, all the retail markup, and all the
    shelf games that happen in the traditional retail model.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Okay, thank you. I have to jump around with
    the limited time here.
        Ms. Hess, it was mentioned you have developed an app that
    allows you to track what people have purchased at the mobile
    market there. So just real quickly on this technology, why is
    tracking this information, do you think, is useful? Is it a
    little bit intrusive?
        Ms. Hess. Yes. It is not intrusive because we are not
    tracking it to individuals, but what we get to see are the
    purchasing patterns that people have, and then we get to see
    what actually works in increasing the amount of healthy food
    that people take home with them. So if we do a kale cooking
    demo 1 week, we can track whether or not our kale sales shot up
    that week at that location, and were they sustained at that
    location. So it is a great way to tell--you can't change what
    you can't measure, so we are measuring what we are doing and--
    --
        Mr. LaMalfa. So not just the 1 week or 2 on kale, but maybe
    a long-term----
        Ms. Hess. Right. Right. Ideally, that is what you come out
    with, right, because if everybody is eating more kale, then we
    will see some health benefits from that.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. I had better yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I want to thank our five witnesses this morning for being
    with us. Your written testimony and more extensive information
    is available. Thank you for what you are doing on your own to
    try to solve this issue. It is a wide-ranging issue, from food
    waste to affordability, misinformation about what is and isn't
    in the food, all those kind of things out there. Some of my
    colleagues have argued passionately about what they won't agree
    to this next year. This series of hearings was done in an
    attempt simply to find out what is working and what is not
    working. It was never intended to cut SNAP or to do anything to
    it but improve it. And if we can get the policies right, then
    we will figure out whether or not we can afford them. But
    getting the policies right is really the goal of these past 2
    years. My team will put together an extensive report on these
    hearings to be able to further the discussion as we move toward
    the legislative part of what our work is about. And we
    appreciate your help. If there is any additional information
    that you want to provide? Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. I just want to thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for these series of hearings, because this is a very,
    very, very, very important subject that this Committee grapples
    with. And it took a lot of leadership for you to do this. It
    has brought a lot of information and education about this
    issue. The one area that really points this out, and just for
    the record so you can understand the significance and the
    greatness of what you have done, is in this latest statistic
    from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that says, 1.7
    million struggling veterans are now using food stamps. In
    addition, more than \1/4\ of recent veterans reported service-
    connected disabilities, which has made it harder for our
    veterans to provide for their families. And households with a
    veteran who has a disability that prevents him or her from
    working are twice as likely to not have access to adequate
    food. That alone, Mr. Chairman, gives great significance of
    what you have done, because you have uncovered some things of
    which this nation has been only dimly aware. And I want to
    thank you for that, and the nation thanks you for that.
        The Chairman. Right. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I appreciate
    that. That has not been a universal position with respect to
    many on the Committee, as the number of hearings we have had--

        Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well, that is why I wanted to
    let you know.
        You deserve the recognition, because I know it has been a
    tough grind for you, but the nation appreciates it.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you, I appreciate that.
        Our Chairwoman and Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, Mrs.
    Walorski and Mr. McGovern, have been an integral part of all of
    that as well. And so, again, I appreciate it.
        Under the Rules of the Committee, today's hearing will
    remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional
    materials and supplemental written responses from the witnesses
    to any question posed by a Member.
        This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
    Thank you again.
        [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
                               Submitted Question
    Response from Eric French, Director of Grocery, Amazon
    Question Submitted by Hon. Trent Kelly, a Representative in Congress
            from Mississippi
        Question. Mr. French, during your testimony you raised questions
    about the security of PIN technology, and you referenced other
    technologies that were as, or more, secure. To put a finer point on
    this part of your testimony, if the Department of Agriculture decides
    to implement with PIN technology as a requirement, is Amazon prepared
    to comply?
        Answer. Yes, Amazon is fully willing and will be prepared to
    implement the current PIN requirement in order to accept SNAP payments
    online. Our statement about PINs was meant to encourage the Committee
    and the USDA to develop a framework that ensures the security of these
    online transactions without prescribing specific technologies, which
    could quickly become outdated. Amazon stands ready to serve as a
    resource to the Committee and the USDA on this important issue.

                                      [all]