[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, [email protected].
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,
[email protected] 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 [email protected] 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
[email protected].
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 [email protected]. 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: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, [email protected], (202)
512-4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
7125, Washington, D.C. 20548.
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected], (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.