House Agriculture Committee Slashes Food Stamp Program

You can’t have both guns and butter. House Republicans have taken this old piece of federal budget wisdom seriously. They’ve opted for guns — not over butter, but over food assistance for poor people.

The guns at issue here are funds for defense. Sequestration, i.e., the annual across-the-board cuts required by the Budget Control Act, would reduce them by $54.7 billion a year.

Nobody in a position of power wants those cuts, including the President.

His proposed Fiscal Year 2013 budget would hit the total deficit reduction targets in the BCA by a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases. It would also, as the BCA does, protect certain key programs for low-income people, including food stamps.

House Republicans will have none of this. Their budget plan, among other things, charged six committees to come up with more non-defense savings — enough to hit the deficit reduction targets, but without touching defense.

The House Agriculture Committee had to save $33.2 billion over the next 10 years, beginning with $8.2 billion in the upcoming fiscal year.

It could have gone after the costly subsidies our government pays to farmers — actually, for the most part, large farming operations.

Some of these provide special benefits for producing certain crops, e.g., yearly payments (even if the farmer grows nothing), compensation to make up for lower market prices. Another subsidizes insurance against crop losses. Yet farmers also get compensated when droughts, frosts, etc. ruin their crops.

All told, these subsidies cost some $25 billion a year. Nice safety net, huh?

The House budget plan itself identifies some of these subsidies for “reforms.” But they’re for another day.

So the Agriculture Committee, heeding “assumptions” made by the Budget Committee found its mandated savings — all of them and more — in the food stamp program.

First, it would shave months off the expiring boost in benefits that was part of the Recovery Act. They’re now scheduled to end in November 2013 — thanks to earlier cutbacks Congress made to offset the costs of other measures.

Under the House Agriculture plan, the boost would end two months from now. For a family of four, this would mean $57 less per month, according to a new brief from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The bulk of the savings, however, would come from two changes in the food stamp law itself.

One of them would, in effect, require households to be poorer to qualify for food stamps.

Under current law, a household can generally have no more than $2,000 in assets — or $3,250 if any of its members is a senior or a person with a disability. Total household income must be no greater than 130% of the applicable federal poverty line.

But most states — and the District of Columbia — have used an option in the law to eliminate the asset test. They’ve expanded their definition of “categorical eligibility,” i.e., types of low-income households that automatically qualify for food stamps.

This not only allows low-income families to conserve what they can for unexpected expenses. It also lets states raise the income eligiibilty threshold up to 200% of the federal poverty line — the level that many analysts use for classifying the low-income population.

The House Agriculture Committee would put a stop to this. Only households in which all members receive cash assistance could be deemed categorically eligible.

No more categorical eligibility for those that receive other types of publicly-funded support for low-income people, e.g., child care subsidies, job training.

Nor for households where only the children receive cash benefits through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program or as Supplemental Security Income.

At least two million people — perhaps as many as three million –would be forced out of the program. More than 280,000 children would lose not only food stamp benefits, but free school meals.

The other change in existing law would permanently reduce the benefits some households receive — again by severely limiting an option a growing number of states now use.

Briefly, the complicated formula states must ordinarily use to calculate food stamp eligibility and benefits levels includes an income allowance for utility costs, based on those applicants actually have to pay for.

But if the family receives benefits from the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, it automatically qualifies for the maximum allowance.

Fourteen states — and the District — have given families in the food stamp program a small LIHEAP benefit. Some of the families get higher food stamp benefits as a result. No big windfall here, however.

The House Agriculture Committee would virtually eliminate the so-called “heat and eat” option — or so I infer, since it expects to save $14 billion.

All this would be in addition to, not instead of the $133.5 billion House Republicans intend to save by converting the food stamp program to a block grant.

Moral of this story: Some people’s safety nets are worthier than others.

Why Did Food Programs For Low-Income DC Seniors Need A Last-Minute Save?

The last-minute save of the food assistance programs for low-income D.C. seniors left a question in my mind. Why, I asked, did we have a near-crisis anyway?

A followup column by Washington City Paper reporter Lydia DePillis provides a partial answer.

Seems that funding for the Greater Washington Urban League’s administrative services wasn’t identified in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget because it was awarded as a one-year grant, with options for renewal.

Unless I’m much mistaken, it wasn’t a line in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget either — perhaps for the same reason.

This explains why advocates weren’t aware that the new budget provided no local funds for administering the programs. Also why senior members of the Gray administration may not have known there might be an issue.

Responding, I assume, to a query from DePillis, a Department of Health spokesperson writes, “All subgrants are subject to funding availability. GWUL was advised last year that the previous funding .. would not be available in FY 2012.”

The Urban League’s Chief Operating Officer tells a different story. Says that they “actually found out about the disappearance of funds several months ago.” (This is an indirect quote in DePillis’s original column on the issue, but I see no reason to believe that it’s not very close to what the COO said.)

Whatever the timing, I don’t think DOH is off the hook.

Recent developments suggest that funding would have been available if the department had flagged the issue back when the Gray administration was developing its proposed budget.

The grant, after all, wasn’t to support some charitable program the Urban League had decided to initiate. It was to partially cover the costs of administering two federally-funded programs DOH is responsible for.

If the department thought the Urban League was spending more than needed, it could have laid the groundwork for a smooth transition to another third-party administrator. That also could have required some local funding.

Since DOH has just announced a new administrator, it’s fair to conclude that it had no assurance it could get the needed services for free when it decided no local funding was needed. Nor do we know at this point whether it will.*

Also fair to conclude that it saw no urgency in providing for some stop-gap measure that would allow low-income seniors to keep getting their grocery bags.

After all, the Urban League issued its notice to clients on or about September 16.

DOH clearly knew by then that the food programs wouldn’t operate unless something were done PDQ. But, so far as we know, it didn’t go directly to top-level people in the Gray administration. If it did, then they’re at fault too.

All we know for certain is that they jumped in only when alerted by DC Hunger and the grassroots messages it generated.

Or maybe only when the advocacy spun off into, among other things, a query from the director of the DC Council Committee on Human Services and negative publicity foreshadowed by the original DePillis column.

In short, it’s a fine thing that low-income seniors will continue to get their free groceries without interruption. But there never should have been a moment’s doubt about this.

* In response to a query, DOH informed me that it is still in negotiations with “the potential subgrantee” and that “until negotiations are finalized, discussions … will remain confidential.”

Quick Action Saves Food Programs For Low-Income DC Seniors

More than 6,600 seniors in the District of Columbia will benefit from two sources of food assistance in the upcoming fiscal year.

But they wouldn’t have without a timely intervention by DC Hunger Solutions and all of us who signed its petition. Because the District failed to budget a relatively small amount to keep the assistance flowing.

Here’s the story, with what seems to be a happy ending.

The main source of food assistance that just got saved comes from the federal government under the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. As its name suggests, the program provides bulk processed and packaged foods, which local agencies then distribute to low-income residents.

Here in the District, as elsewhere, most of them are seniors with incomes at or below 130% of the federal poverty line.

They get monthly bags of nutritious foods worth about $52 each — a meaningful contribution to healthy eating for seniors who have to stretch very tight budgets in our high-cost city.

The other type of food assistance that was at risk comes from the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, also federally-funded. This program provides low-income seniors with coupons they can use to buy limited amounts of fresh produce and/or honey at local farmers’ markets.

The District limits the coupons to seniors who participate in the commodity food program and relies on the same administrative function to distribute them. Low-income seniors thus stood to lose an additional $30 per year in food assistance.

Why, you may ask, did the District have to come up with any money if the programs are federally funded?

The answer is that the federal funds don’t fully cover the District’s administrative costs.

More specifically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides the commodities for the grocery bags, but only a fixed amount for administrative costs, based on each state’s projected caseload.

Here in the District, administrative costs exceed what the federal government provides. This, I’m told, is generally the case for states as well.

Grants for the farmers’ market coupons are based on a formula set by USDA. Agencies must spend at least 90% of their grant funds on reimbursements to farmers, market operators and the like for coupons used.

Here again they generally have to come up with some of their own funds to cover all the administrative costs.

The DC Department of Health has formal responsibility for administering the two programs. About 18 months ago, it decided to outsource the ongoing administrative tasks, e.g., verifying eligibility, distributing the groceries and coupons.

So it issued a grant to the Greater Washington Urban League, which was already operating a number of social services programs in the District, as well as in Prince Georges County, Maryland.

As with so many of these things, the District’s budget never had a line item for the grant. But funds were somehow found to renew it last year. These, if I understand correctly, covered about half the administrative costs and federal funds the remainder.

This year, the Urban League was told it would have to find another source for the administrative costs the District had paid for. It tried, but without success. So it notified its clients and volunteers that it would end its role in the program, effective September 30.

DOH apparently had no backup plan. Hence the urgent message from DC Hunger Solutions.

Well, Mayor Gray got the word — and sent out word to his people that he wants the programs continued.

E-mail from a top-level Executive Office appointee says “short-term solution” now, to be followed by “new management,” i.e., another nonprofit service provider.

So it seems that funds will be found to ensure that both the commodity food program and the farmers’ market coupon program will survive for another year.

And a good thing too. DC Hunger Solutions tells us that the small investment the District will make translates into about $4.1 million in food for low-income seniors who might otherwise go hungry — or at the very least, have to survive on a poorly-balanced diet.

Now, can someone in DOH explain why we had a near-crisis about this?

NOTE: I’m crediting — and I think rightly the work of DC Hunger Solutions and its allies, including petition signers. But it’s no coincidence that word of a solution went out shortly after Washington City Paper columnist Lydia DePillis put the issue in the public eye.

UPDATE: A followup posting delves into the final question above. It summarizes new information that’s been unearthed, as well as what we knew when I wrote this. As you’ll see, DOH still has some explaining to do.

Obesity and Poverty

The Executive Director of Bread for the City has written an open letter to the Washington Post in response to its recent article on obesity and hunger. The letter reports recent steps Bread has taken to help its clients “not only eat, but eat well”–nutrition counseling and healthy cooking classes, improvements in the nutrition profile of the foods it provides.

It’s good to see Bread for the City taking the lead on this important issue and especially to learn that it’s practicing what it preaches. But, as its letter says, high obesity rates among poor people are not something Bread and other nonprofits can tackle alone. And they must be tackled because obesity is linked to serious (and costly) chronic health problems, including hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and arthritis.

Bread calls on the new Administration to expand access to food assistance programs in a way that prioritizes nutrition. As the Post reports, the incoming Secretary of Agriculture seems ready to propose higher nutrition standards for in-school meals. These would certainly help. But, as everyone knows, a more comprehensive approach is needed.

Of course, obesity is not restricted to poor people. It’s a major public health issue for the entire population. However, the federal government and state and local governments too have greater opportunities to influence what poor people do and don’t do. They can exercise this influence sensibly and respectfully or otherwise.

The federal government already shapes the diets of some poor people with its list of foods state agencies can authorize under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). Now some are proposing that it restrict use of food stamps to healthy foods and beverages.

This idea is fraught with problems. An article in USDA’s Amber Waves identifies some of them. As it indicates, there’s no easy way to draw a bright white line between healthy and unhealthy food products.  Nor is it certain that the resulting restrictions would meaningfully change purchasing behavior. To these practical issues, I would add the paternalistic coercion that would be involved. Uncle Sam knows what’s best for you and is going to see to it that you live right.

It would make more sense, I think, to look at the obesity issue holistically and design a variety of coordinated programs that would empower poor people to maintain a balanced diet. Here are four basic questions that can trigger solutions:

• Do poor people have the resources to stave off hunger–a possible trigger for overeating and fat storage?
• Do they have the resources to buy a variety of healthful foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables?
• Do they have ready access to sources of a variety of healthful foods?
• Do they have the know-how to maintain a balanced diet on a limited budget?

Despite a number of promising initiatives, the answer to all these questions is a resounding No.

So there’s a lot of work here for governments at all levels and for private sector businesses, nutritionists, other health professionals and nonprofits, including Bread. We’ve enough experience to know they’ll achieve most if they collaborate.