Fewer Hungry People Nationwide, But More in DC

Feeding America’s new Map the Meal report delivers some moderately good news about food insecurity for the nation as a whole. Contrariwise for the District of Columbia.

In 2010, the national food insecurity rate, i.e., the percent of people who couldn’t always afford to buy enough food for themselves and their families, dropped a bit — 16.1%, as compared to 16.6% in 2009.

This means that about 13.3 million fewer people didn’t struggle with hunger. Moderately good news only because more than 48.8 million still did.

As in 2009, 55% of food insecure people had household incomes below 130% of the federal poverty line — the standard cut-off for food stamp eligibility and free school meals.*

An additional 16% of food insecure people had incomes below the maximum set for WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) and reduced-price school meals.

Using a methodology that’s too complex to summarize, Feeding America calculated the average amount it would cost to fill what it calls the meal gap, i.e., the total food budget shortfall.

The standard used for the meal costs was one of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Thrifty Food plans. So filling the gap, in this report, means meals that are reasonably well-balanced and cheap.

Nationwide, we could have filled the gap for somewhat less than $21.2 billion — a mere $2.52 per meal.

The story is wholly different for District residents.

Between 2009 and 2010, the food insecurity rate rose by 0.7%. So while the local food insecurity rate was lower than the national in 2009, it was higher in 2010 — 16.5%.

The raw number of food insecure residents rose to 99.490 — an increase of 6,310 over 2009.

At the same time, the percent of food insecure residents eligible for the major federally-funded food assistance programs dropped from 63% to 45% — or by about 13,900 poor and near-poor people.

In other words, the District made significant progress at the low end of the income scale. But above 200% of the federal poverty line, the number increased by more than 20,200.

I find this big uptick rather puzzling.

The average meal cost, as Feeding America calculates it, is considerably higher than nationwide — $3.41 per meal. But that’s what it was the year before also.

And New York City, where the average meal cost is even higher, has a much lower percent of food insecure residents above the cut-off for food assistance programs — even though the cut-off is lower there.

This much is sure. And it’s a point Feeding America wants to make generally. A whole lot of food insecure people can get no relief from hunger except from nonprofit dining rooms and food pantries.

In the District, it’s well over half of all food insecure residents — 54,720 in 2010.

Food prices have increased and are expected to go even higher. Housing costs are rising. And I don’t have to say anything about petrol, do I?

Nor about the unemployment rate, which here in the District is still well over 9%. A tough job market. And long-term unemployment benefits that will nevertheless shrink.

So our nonprofit food services — and the Capital Area Food Bank that helps supply them — will be sorely pressed to keep up with rising needs.

They’ll need all the help they can get from TEFAP (the Emergency Food Assistance Program), which provides free frozen, processed and packaged foods that go through food banks to direct providers.

How much help they’ll get is an open question.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has approved the maximum authorized for ongoing TEFAP food purchases, plus about the same for storage and distribution as the program is getting now.

The House of Representatives, however, seems bound and determined to pass a budget below the level agreed to last August.

For its Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, this means a cap about $1.4 billion lower than what the Senate subcommittee worked with.

House appropriators — and ultimately the Republican majority as a whole — chose to cut TEFAP by $48 million last year. But they ultimately agreed to the higher figure the Senate wanted.

One can only hope that Senate negotiators hang tough again, if needs be. And need be likely for TEFAP as well as many other safety net programs.

* Recall that many states and the District have availed themselves of a legal — and endangered — option to enroll households with somewhat higher incomes.

House Appropriations Bill Takes Broad Aim At Food Assistance Programs

I wouldn’t want to leave the impression that the just-passed funding allocations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture are fine, except for the cut to WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children).

The House also took the knife to two other nationwide food assistance programs — the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).

Neither of these, I think, is a household word. So here’s a brief overview of what the programs do and the cuts that the House just voted for — or rather, that House Republicans voted for, since they passed the bill with no Democratic support.

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program provides, as its name suggests, food products — all packaged or canned — to supplement the diets of low-income people.

USDA purchases the products, selecting a mix that will compensate for common nutritional deficiencies. It distributes them to state agencies, which in turn distribute them in food packages — either directly or through nonprofit organizations.

At this point, 39 states and the District of Columbia participate in the program, along with Indian reservations in two states that don’t participate.

Eligibility is limited to two groups — the same population that’s eligible for WIC and seniors 60 years and older with household incomes at or below 130% of the federal poverty line.

Since pregnant women, mothers and their young children can’t participate in both WIC and CSFP, about 96% of participants are seniors. In Fiscal Year 2010, an average of 497,000 of them got a food package in any given month.

The program was then funded at $171.4 million. The House has cut its funding to $138.5 million — about 21% less than it’s getting now under the continuing resolution that’s this year’s substitute for a regular federal budget.

When the House passed its original version of the CR, the Food Research and Action Center warned that the proposed $20 million cut to CSFP would deny food packages to 81,000 low-income seniors.

The cut that’s now been approved would leave CFSP with $12.9 million less than what it would have had under the House CR. So it seems reasonable to suppose that an even larger number of seniors will lose their food packages — if the Senate doesn’t reject the cut.

These are seniors who, if living alone, have annual incomes at or below $14,157 — less than $1,180 per month. They’d reportedly have to pay about $50 a month to purchase the foods they now get in their CSFP packages.

A big bite out of a small budget that’s also got to cover all other basic needs.

TEFAP also provides food assistance in the form of commodities that have already been processed and packaged.

Here too, USDA purchases and distributes them to states, based on what states choose from a list that looks much like the CSFP list. USDA also gives states a variable quantity of bonus commodities, i.e., foods it buys to support producers’ prices when supply exceeds demand.

The commodities then go directly to soup kitchens, food pantries and other emergency food providers or to food banks that distribute them to such programs.

As I wrote last year, TEFAP had less for food purchases than it did in Fiscal Year 2009 — though food banks and the partner agencies they distribute to were reporting shortfalls.

The House has cut TEFAP funding by $63 million — $51 million less for commodity purchases and $12 million less for storage and distribution.

Feeding America and 46 other concerned organizations say that the emergency food system is already facing a projected 50% reduction in bonus commodities. The House cuts on top of this loss “will force many local agencies to reduce support for existing clients or turn new clients away.”

This at a time when need is extraordinarily high and the system already strained.

The House agriculture appropriations bill now goes to the Senate, which doesn’t have even a basic budget plan yet. What will happen next is anybody’s guess. Yet another continuing resolution wouldn’t surprise me.

House Republicans Give New Meaning To “Women And Children First”

House Republicans have decided that WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) must be cut to “restore the fiscal health of our nation.”

These words from the House Appropriations Committee’s report, which also assures us that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will have sufficient funding for its core missions, including “helping the most needy in our domestic feeding programs.”

WIC currently serves nearly 9 million low-income pregnant women, infants, children under five and their mothers, provided that a health professional has found them to be “at nutritional risk,” e.g., because they’re anemic, underweight or not consuming enough of the right kinds of things for a healthy diet.

Mothers and children in these categories are eligible if their family income is at or below 185% of the federal poverty line. Those who participate — or have family members who participate — in certain other federally-funded benefits programs can be automatically eligible.

In some states, this apparently makes for some exceptions to the regular eligibility ceiling. The Appropriations Committee wants USDA to focus solely on “the neediest or the hardest hit by the economic downturn.” Forget about the just plain needy.

The committee’s report also says that the Secretary of Agriculture can supplement the appropriation, if necessary, by using funds left over from the current fiscal year, plus funds in a separate contingency account.

Seems to imply that there’ll be enough to serve everyone who’s eligible. Not so.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has crunched the numbers. It reports that, even when you factor in these additional funds, state WIC programs would have to turn away 200,000-350,000 low-income mothers and children.

Here in the District, 400-600 could lose out on the healthy foods and diverse preventive services that make WIC so important to the health and development of poor children in their critical early years.

The numerical ranges reflect uncertainties about food prices.

WIC participants get coupons or the equivalent to purchase certain amounts of specific foods and beverages. Their monthly allotments reflect what states have chosen from a federally-established food basket, which provides for different items in different quantities according to scientifically-determined needs.

So when costs of the items in the basket rise, per participant costs rise as well. Federal funding doesn’t.

Anyone who’s been to the grocery store lately knows that food prices have shot up. CBPP says that experts expect a further increase of at least 2% before the end of next fiscal year. Some think a 5% increase is likely. But who knows what droughts, floods, another spike in gas prices, etc. could mean?

We do know that the WIC cut would have no meaningful impact on the deficit. The continuing resolution that’s funding the federal government now provides only $6.73 billion for the program. The House has just voted to reduce next year’s funding to $6.05 billion.

Chump change “savings” in light of a deficit that would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 trillion next year, even under the House Republican’s radical budget plan.

And a true case of penny wise, pound foolish. Lots of research shows that participation in WIC reduces costly health problems and developmental delays.

USDA reports that every $1.00 spent on WIC has saved as much as $3.13 in health care costs during the first two months after an infant’s birth. Per dollar savings increased to about $3.50 over an 18 year period.

Looking at the issue from the other side, the Partnership for America’s Economic Success reviews a range of physical, mental, behavioral and academic problems linked to prenatal and early childhood food insecurity.

These are costly in economic as well as human terms. Consider not only the direct outlays for health care, special education and the like, but the long-term costs in lost productivity — and tax revenues.

But House Republicans aren’t really thinking in economic terms. They’re going after federal programs that don’t fit their ideological framework — with those they’ve shrewdly decided to call “welfare” high on the list.

If they were really concerned about promoting prosperity, they’d see WIC as a good investment. Really concerned about the deficit, they’d agree to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

Just one week of what these cuts give America’s millionaires could fund the year-long increase for WIC that the President requested and leave millions for other purposes.

Bring Free Suppers To Poor DC Children

I wrote awhile ago about the enormous stress on after-school programs in the District. More children are showing up for these programs hungry because they didn’t have dinner the night before. One more thing to chalk up to the recession.

The best these programs can do is serve more hefty snacks and let children take extras home. Even this is creating big budget pressures because the federal government reimburses at a maximum of $0.74 per snack. And, for sites that aren’t run by public schools, snacks for children over 12 aren’t reimbursed at all.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Under existing legislation, eligible programs in 10 states can get reimbursed for serving suppers. The Fiscal Year 2010 agriculture appropriations bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would add the District to the list.

The companion bill passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee wouldn’t. But the full Senate could add D.C. when the bill comes to the floor.

Those of you who don’t live in D.C. can support this action by e-mailing or calling your Senators. It’s a good step toward expanding the supper program nationwide when the Child Nutrition Act is reauthorized. No comment here on how we D.C. residents lack our own leverage.

The District has made great strides with its after-school nutrition programs. In 2008, they served about 14,650 children–more than five and a half times as many as in 2004. Just think what a difference it would make if even some of these programs could serve all school-age children a healthy evening meal.