Not Such Golden Years for Many Older Americans Because Hunger Stalks

June 13, 2016

I learned only belatedly that last month was Older Americans Month — an after-the-fact answer to why my social media accounts had so many links to posts, feature stories and the like about seniors.

We who’ve entered our supposedly golden years are, as a whole, better off than younger people, thanks mainly to Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare. But substantial numbers of us suffer hardships of various sorts. And in some cases, public programs don’t serve us as well as they could.

As followers know, I’m passionate about food. So I’ll deal here with what public programs do — and don’t — to ensure that all seniors have enough of it and of the right kinds for lives as healthy as we older folks can expect.

Seniors at Risk of Hunger, Despite SNAP

Nearly 9% of households with at least one elderly member were food insecure in 2014. These, as you probably know, were households that couldn’t always afford enough food for everyone to eat healthfully.

Elderly people living alone had a slightly higher rate of food insecurity. And 3.8% of them — about 480,000 — didn’t always have enough to eat, healthful or otherwise.

The Food Research and Action Center views such evident struggles with hunger as a symptom of “senior SNAP gaps” — gaps state agencies and community-based organizations can partially close.

Agencies, for example, can make the application process simpler by, among other things, replacing an extremely burdensome requirement to document medical expenses with a standard excess medical deduction.

Both they and community-based organizations can do targeted outreach to seniors who probably could receive SNAP benefits, but haven’t applied. We’ve long known various reasons for this that outreach can address.

Seniors don’t know they’re eligible, for example. They’d feel ashamed to receive a welfare benefit. Or they believe (wrongly) that they’d be effectively taking food away from someone needier.

But this is far from the whole story, as a U.S. Department of Agriculture analysis shows. Elderly people living alone — as the vast majority of those in SNAP do — received, on average, $119 a month in 2012-13.

That translates into about $1.30 per meal — yet another sign that SNAP benefits are too low. Too low for anyone, but for some seniors especially because they can’t stretch their benefits as the food plan USDA uses to set them assumes.

They may, for example, not have ready access to a full-service grocery store — and even more likely, not a form of transportation that would enable them to stock up on food for a week, let alone buy more of what’s on sale.

They may not have either the kitchen facilities or the capacities to prepare their meals from scratch either. But neither they nor anyone else can use SNAP benefits for carryout meals. And microwaveable meals are obviously budget-busters.

USDA cited the age-related challenges in its fact sheet for last year’s Older Americans Month. Yet only two initiatives it announced then addressed problems inherent in the food plan — both pilots, including one I’ve celebrated before.

It would perhaps enable more seniors — and people with disabilities, regardless of age — to use their SNAP benefits for home-delivered groceries. But the benefits would still reflect unrealistic assumptions.

Hunger Not Only Because of SNAP Gaps

Some seniors, of course, can’t get out and about at all — or cook food delivered to them, whether through the SNAP purchasing and delivery option or by some well-meaning relative or friend.

Meals on Wheels enables them to eat, though generally not every day, my Googling around suggests. Those who can get out and about can get meals at a community center, church or some other facility that has them eating together.

The Older Americans Act is a major source of funding for both. Congress recently reauthorized it, with some improvements in the meals portion.

That, however, doesn’t ensure any particular level of funding for nutrition assistance — or any other service state agencies can use their OAA share for. The programs get whatever Congress decides in any given year.

So they took a hit when the Budget Control Act required across-the-board spending cuts. Congress has reportedly restored what the nutrition programs lost. But they’ve gotten no increase in the past two years.

Not surprising then that communities still report waiting lists for Meals on Wheels. A genuine risk of malnutrition, it seems — and a foregone opportunity to reduce other health risks.

A recent study of that fine control-group kind found that daily home-delivered meals improved seniors’ mental health and sense of well-being more than frozen foods delivered weekly.

The Meals on Wheels group also reported falling less, suggesting potential cost-savings beyond those that simply providing enough to eat would achieve.

Further savings, of course, insofar as home-delivered meals can enable seniors to age in place, as most of us want to, rather than moving to a nursing home — at a cost so high that all but the wealthiest (or best-insured) would ultimately have to rely on Medicaid.

As more of us live longer and the costs of feeding us rise, the OAA nutrition programs will need more money to remain an effective part of the food safety net.

This is also true for other public programs that help feed low-income seniors — the Child and Adult Care Food Program, for example. The meals and snacks it subsidizes don’t make much of a dent in senior hunger — only 120,000 or so adults served and not all of them elderly.

A piece of the food safety net nonetheless — and one I would think already needs more money, given the reimbursement rates.

The bottom line here is the bottom line. Food insecurity and hunger — among seniors, children and everyone in between — is a problem Congress can solve. But it can’t without shortchanging other basic needs until it puts a higher priority on them than on reducing the deficit by spending cuts alone.

Down from the soapbox now so that I, among the fortunate, can go fix dinner. But I’ll climb back on it to take up housing — another basis need that even more seniors can’t afford.


House Committee Child Nutrition Bill Creates New, Harmful Block Grant

May 31, 2016

Shortly before the House took yet another break, the Education and Workforce Committee passed a bill to reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act. All Republicans, but one voting in favor. All Democrats against.

The Chairman, who drafted the bill, has styled it the “Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act.” Let’s just say it wouldn’t. Unlike past CNA renewals and the bill awaiting final action by the Senate, it would do the opposite.

I’ve already noted how the bill — still then a draft — would deny many now-eligible schools the option of serving free meals to all their students. That’s just one of many concerns the Food Research and Action Center summarizes.

Top of its list is a provision the Chairman added to get his right-wingers on board. It’s yet another block grant — limited initially, but clearly an entering wedge, since it involves programs House Republicans haven’t sought to block grant for a very long time.

The bill would allow three states to receive a single funding stream for four child nutrition programs, including the school breakfast and lunch programs. They’d get the same amount of funding each year, regardless of what it would cost to continue serving free and reduced-price meals to all low-income children.

Their block grants seem, at first, whatever they received this year. But they’d almost surely get less because the bill excludes the extra six cents per lunch the current CNA provides when school districts meet the improved nutrition standards. All but tiny fraction do.

States would have a lot of flexibility, of course, because that’s Republicans’ big selling point for block grants. They could, for example, altogether disregard those nutrition standards, provided they served meals that were “healthy,” according to whatever standard they devised.

They could define eligibility for free and reduced-price meals however they chose. So perhaps all but the very poorest families would have to pay the reduced-price rates. And those could be far higher than the current rule allows — 40 cents per lunch and a dime less for breakfast.

They wouldn’t have to fund both breakfasts and lunches. They’d only have to ensure that children have “access” to one “affordable” (undefined) meal a day.

Now, it’s doubtful states would use their flexibility in all the worst ways they could. But as food costs rise and other costs that prepared meals entail, e.g., labor, utilities, they’d have to spend more of their own funds or cut other costs.

Hard to see how they could do the latter without denying children now eligible for free or reduced-price meals the same number of meals — and meals as truly affordable and healthful — as schools now provide.

And what about children who’d become eligible if the economy goes south? As things stand now, federal subsidies for school meals grow when more children get them at no or very little cost to their families.

But block grant states wouldn’t get a penny more, no matter how great the need. A further pressure then to ratchet down eligibility standards and/or cut back on meals.

Well, the Ed and Workforce bill won’t become the new Child Nutrition Act, even if the House passes it. So why should we concern ourselves?

First off, it could doom the Senate bill. The responsible committee there passed its bill unanimously, raising hopes of a fairly smooth glide path to a full Senate vote in favor.

Now some Republicans may fancy what they see in the House bill and insist on something similar. There goes the super-majority required for a substantive vote — perhaps even a plain majority.

If the Senate instead passes the bill its committee has crafted, then the task of developing a compromise version that both chambers will pass becomes even more difficult than it would have been without the late addition of the block grant.

So again, we’ll have another year without any changes in the CNA — perhaps not the worst thing, as you’ve gathered, but not the best one could realistically hope for either.

We should perhaps look at the latest block grant contender more broadly. It’s a sign — not the only one — that lead Republicans are trying to promote block grants as a key reform in the federal anti-poverty effort.

SNAP and Medicaid block grants have been standard features of House budget plans ever since Republicans gained a majority.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has teed up opportunity grants — basically, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families on steroids, as I said at the time. The anti-poverty agenda he’ll unveil next week will almost surely, at the very least, endorse “state flexibility funds,” aka block grants.

Meanwhile, his second-in-command aims to covert a block grant that’s now a limited experiment into a nationwide program. More on that soon. The big picture, however, is already clear.

The child nutrition block grant is a symptom of a multi-faceted effort to end the safety net as we know it, leaving states with the flexibility to undermine protections or use their own tax revenues to fill funding gaps.

Which, as we know, many won’t, even if they could. We’ve got more than enough evidence in TANF –the model Republicans still tout.

No one, I think, views all safety net and similar programs as perfect. Carefully tailored, limited experiments may surface improvements worth expanding — through reauthorizing laws, for example.

But the school meal programs generally do what they’re supposed to — reduce hunger, improve health and, for both reasons, enable low-income children to learn more in their classrooms. They wouldn’t if block-granted.

And Republicans on the Ed and Workforce Committee presumably know this, but care more about cutting federal spending — except, of course, for defense.

 


Why So Many People at Risk of Hunger in DC and Nationwide?

May 19, 2016

We may all be Washington, D.C., as the Mayor’s slogan implies, but we’re not all sufficiently fed. In fact, 90,900 (13.8%) of us don’t always have enough food for an active, healthy lifestyle because we can’t afford it, according to Feeding America’s latest Map the Meal Gap report.*

The “us” here includes 29,820 children (nearly 26%) of those living in the District in 2014, the most recent year Feeding America could get data for. They’re not necessarily underfed, but they live in food insecure households and so are, at the very least, at risk of hunger.

Troublesome as these figures are, they’re better than those for the prior two years — especially 2013, when the food insecurity rate for all District residents was 15% and, for children, 30.5%.

On the other hand, the child food insecurity rate is 5% higher than the national rate, though the overall rate is slightly lower.

What can we tease out to explain such relatively high food insecurity rates in the District? First off — and this is true everywhere — families with children are more likely to be hard up for food money than families without them.

They’re still short, even with SNAP (food stamp) benefits and other federally-funded nutrition assistance, e.g., WIC, free or reduced-price school meals. Or so it seems.

Here in the District, nearly three-quarters of food insecure residents have incomes below 200% of the federal poverty line — the threshold Feeding America uses because the District has taken advantage of an option that allows residents with incomes this high to have their eligibility for SNAP considered.

Doesn’t mean they’ll all qualify. Their income, after deductions must still be no greater than 100% of the FPL But broad-based categorical eligibility, as the option is called, does seem to make a difference.

For children, Feeding America uses 185% of the FPL — the maximum income for WIC and reduced-price school meals. By this measure, somewhat over two-thirds of food insecure children qualify for nutrition assistance.

The flip side of these figures, of course, is that a quite high percent of food insecure District residents, including children have household incomes too high for any federally-funded nutrition assistance.

Both those aided and those not face a problem that the Feeding America report is really about — what it calls the meal gap, i.e., the difference between the per-meal cost of food and what individuals and families can afford.

It does some complex number-crunching to arrive at the gap — or more precisely, gaps. The end result for the nation as a whole is $2.89.

The meal gap in the District is notably higher — $3.49 per meal or more than $73 a week, assuming three meals a day, every day, as Feeding America does. This surely goes a long way toward explaining the high food insecurity rates.

On the one hand, as I’ve said, many food insecure District residents have incomes to high to qualify for SNAP, which would supplement their own budgets.

The city is also home to residents who’ve got incomes well below the threshold, but don’t qualify because they’re undocumented immigrants — or documented, but haven’t lived in the country long enough.

On the other hand, those who do qualify won’t have enough to cover the costs of reasonably healthful meals all month long. A parent with two children, for example, can get at most $511 a month — or about $1.87 per meal for each family member.

Closing the local meal gap would have cost roughly $56 million two years ago — and more than $24.5 billion nationwide. That’s a lot of money. Which tells us why Feeding America maps the gap.

The organization, as you may know, supplies food to a national network of food banks. Some of the food comes from federal agencies, it says. The rest — and far greater portion — comes from private-sector sources, e.g., food processors, grocery chains and monetary donations it uses to buy food.

The banks, in turn, channel the food to nonprofits that serve prepared meals and/or distribute groceries to poor and near-poor people in the area they serve. They too may get food from private-sector sources and buy more, using cash or cash-equivalent donations.

And they may get some from the Emergency Food Assistance Program — a variable mix that the U.S. Department of Agriculture parcels out to state agencies and they, in turn, to the banks and/or community action agencies.

Here in the District, 132 pantries, dining rooms, other programs that serve meals and/or snacks and the DC Central Kitchen, which prepares meals for some of them, depend in part on what they receive from the Capital Area Food Bank.

Narrowing the meal gap will obviously require more food — and more money to not only buy it, but distribute, store, prepare and deliver it.

We surely can’t look to this Congress, though we can hope it doesn’t widen the gap. That’s what House Republicans would do if they succeeded in converting SNAP to a block grant, as their budget plans have repeatedly envisioned.

It’s what their latest plan would probably do, even without the block grant, because it puts a tighter squeeze on non-defense programs that depend on annual spending choices. This already-shrunken part of the budget includes WIC, parts of TEFAP and several sources of funds for free or low-cost home-delivered meals.

Highly doubtful we’ll see the cuts this year. But it’s obvious that the meal gap will remain — and probably grow, as it already has — without more public funds to shrink it.

* The food insecurity rates Feeding America reports for states and the District are slightly higher than those USDA reported. This apparently is because the agency uses two-year averages to compensate for the relatively small size of its survey sample.


Progress Perhaps, But a Long Way to Go Before Every Kid Healthy

April 18, 2016

This is Every Kid Healthy Week, invented to celebrate what schools are doing to turn out healthy kids. Would that every kid were healthy — or even that schools could make them all so.

Not saying schools can’t do a lot, mind you. They can, for example, schedule daily physical activities and offer after-school and summer sports programs.

They can include nutrition in their curricula and get kids interested in healthful foods, e.g., by having gardens where they can plant and tend vegetables. And they can, of course, serve nutritious meals, even if Congress lets them off the hook somewhat.

They can also, in many cases, help ensure that kids who need those meals most actually get them by taking advantage of a new option called community eligibility. And a growing number of schools are.

That’s the good news. The bad news, also delivered shortly before this celebratory week, is that many children with dangerously high levels of lead in their blood are more likely to suffer toxic effects because they don’t get enough of the right kinds of things to eat. And no real news, alas, from Congress.

Free School Meals for More Poor Kids

Schools ordinarily require parents to apply for free or reduced-price meals for their children — and to reapply every year. This, needless to say, is a barrier, especially for parents who don’t read well and/or fear scrutiny by bureaucrats.

Schools must bypass this process for children whose families receive SNAP (food stamp) benefits. They may also directly certify children who receive certain other federal benefits, e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

They can do this, however, only if their computer system links to systems in other agencies and can perform data matches. For this and perhaps other reasons, they missed well over one in five eligible children in 2013-14, the latest year we have figures for.

The newest version of the Child Nutrition Act gives some schools another option that eliminates not only the application and technology barriers, but another — the stigma low-income children feel if they go to the cafeteria.

Schools with at least 40% of children who automatically qualify for free school meals may opt for community eligibility. In other words, they can expand eligibility for free school meals to the entire student community.

Last year was only the second that all high-poverty schools could seize this opportunity. More did, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Food Research and Action Center report.

Just over half of all schools that could had adopted community eligibility by the end of the school year. A lot of variation, as one might guess.

The District of Columbia reached 87%, second only to North Dakota. Less than a quarter of high-poverty schools in 10 states were adopters. But almost all states had more schools participating than during the first year when what had been a pilot program became an option nationwide.

Higher Lead Poisoning Risks Due to Poor Nutrition

We’re all familiar now with exposure to lead poisoning — from water, as in Flint, Michigan, which put the problem on the public radar screen, and from other sources, e.g., paint, contaminated soil.

And we’re familiar with the lifelong damages that lead in the body can cause, especially in young children, and with the fact that alarming numbers of those tested have dangerously high levels of lead in their blood.

These children are only the tip of the iceberg because states don’t test all children for lead poisoning — even apparently all children at high risk. But what we do know indicates that it’s far more common among children in high-poverty communities — presumably then among poor and near-poor children.

Certain vitamins and minerals can reduce lead absorption and/or the toxic effects of lead absorbed. So a well-balanced diet does even more for children’s health than what’s commonly said.

Looked at the other way, children at high risk of lead exposure are also at higher risk for harmful health effects because the foods they’re served at home are less likely to deliver enough of the protective nutrients.

The Urban Institute tries to show an actual link by focusing on a subset of high-poverty counties — those that tested at least 1,000 children and found at least 5% with blood lead levels over the Center for Disease Control’s high-risk threshold.

The five with the highest test results also had child food insecurity rates above the very high national average, it reports. Most of the rest of the counties it sampled had higher than average rates too.

So, wrapping back around, high-poverty schools have an extra incentive, were one needed, to opt for community eligibility.

What Only Congress Can Do, But Isn’t

Community eligibility can do only so much. Many low-income children are too young for even kindergarten, of course. They’ll need well-balanced meals and snacks in daycare programs.

School-age children will need the same during summer months, when their families now often have to stretch their too-low SNAP benefits to feed them as many as 10 extra meals a week.

The Urban Institute draws the connection. Only Congress can expand and strengthen the programs that are supposed to prevent hunger and malnutrition among low-income children.

It’s again let the umbrella for these programs — the Child Nutrition Act — expire, though it’s given the current law a brief extension.

The Senate has had a pretty good bill to reauthorize the CNA pending since late January. But the Majority Leader seems more preoccupied with the Supreme Court vacancy — and with proving that he and his Republican colleagues can get something done.

Don’t even look to the House, which is apparently looking to the Senate to pass its version of the CNA. It will, of course, have to vote on a bill sooner or later.

Seems that action there could, among other things, roll back progress on community eligibility, since the draft committee bill would raise the opt-in threshold to 60% of poor and near-poor students.

Action to help Flint get the lead out of its water — and to prevent more such crises — seems stalled too, by one lone Senator, who asserts that Michigan has plenty of money.

No concern about lead poisoning elsewhere, but rather that his colleagues would just “funnel taxpayer money to their own home states,” as if they don’t have corroding lead water pipes too.

More concern on the part of the Majority Leader to protect a dubious Senate custom than endangered children, it seemsĀ  — or perhaps more to prevent another intra-party rift.

Too soon to say how any of this will ultimately pan out. But it’s clear that Every Kid Healthy Week is a bittersweet occasion.

 


Children’s Doctors Prescribe Good Food … and Enough of It

March 3, 2016

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement on children and food security some months ago. Took me awhile to get to it, but better late than never, I think, because the statement is important for several reasons — and still timely, also for several reasons.

Voice of Authority

First off and most obvious, the AAP has unusual credibility — and in some quarters, influence — as a voice for children’s well-being. It’s the professional association for some 64,000 doctors who provide primary care and specialized services to children and young adults.

It’s nonpartisan, of course, and apparently free from the conflicts of interest that can shape research and policy, including support from corporations who’ll profit more — or less — from nutrition policies, guidelines and the like. (You who’ve been following the debate over school meal nutrition standards know why I mention them.)

Big Picture From Research

The policy statement pulls together findings from reliable research on how food insecurity affects children. Some are familiar to anyone who follows anti-hunger campaigns, even casually — poorer overall health, more hospital stays, high risks of obesity, learning problems, etc.

Others are perhaps less so. For example, the shame kids feel when they see their parents eating less so they can have enough. Also the fear they’ll be labeled “poor” and shunned by their peers.

Feelings like these probably stem from the all-too-common view that poverty reflects a failure of personal responsibility. Perhaps doctors — highly respected folks who’ve surely demonstrated personal responsibility — could lend their weight to a culture shift.

Call to Action

The AAP enjoins pediatricians to advocate for federal and local policies that help ensure food security for all children and their families. It notes specifically sufficient funding for SNAP (the food stamp program) and the Child Nutrition Act programs.

It also calls for advocacy to keep foods offered in these programs “high in nutrient quality,” according to “sound nutrition science.” Respected voices needed here.

Congress has already enabled schools to get temporary waivers from two school meal nutrition requirements — a switch to use of only whole-grain food products and a gradual reduction in the total amount of sodium in the breakfasts and lunches they serve.

Now the Senate Agriculture Committee has completed a revised CNA — one of those bipartisan compromises that gives schools some flexibility on the whole grains and sodium, but not a free pass.

But we may see further compromises in the “high nutrient quality” of the meals schools serve. A bill introduced by one of the Republican members of the House subcommittee responsible for the CNA would go further toward “reducing federal mandates,” as its title proclaims. No caps at all on calories or grains, for example.

So the call is especially timely. But it’s also forward-looking because USDA will presumably review the nutrition standards and related meal plans for daycare facilities, as well as school meals now that we have new Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

At the local level, pediatricians have several advocacy opportunities. They obviously could — and should — discourage schools districts from relaxing their efforts to serve meals as healthful as the current standards require.

They could also encourage more school districts to opt for community eligibility. Schools with relatively high percents of poor and near-poor students could then serve free meals to all, regardless of their family’s income.

This, among other things, has increased the number of students served two full, well-balanced meals a day — probably in part by removing fear of the free-meal stigma.

Broader Approach to Children’s Healthcare

The AAP statement reaches furthest, I think, in its recommendations for incorporating food insecurity into pediatrics training and practices. Children’s doctors would then not only understand how it affects their patients’ health, but actually do something about it.

The AAP recommends a routine screening, using a pared-down version of the survey used for USDA’s annual food security reports.

Pediatricians, like other doctors, need the information in part to understand what the source of their patients’ problems might be — anemia, for example, chronic anxiety, both overweight and underweight.

They also need it to make sure parents can follow instructions. Pills should be taken three times a day with food. Well, will there be food in the house?

Beyond this, however, the AAP wants pediatricians to become familiar with food assistance sources in the community so they can make referrals. It envisions the screening and readiness to link families in need as a regular part of medical education.

And beyond this, it alludes to specialized training that has led to partnerships between pediatrics clinics and both social workers and pro bono attorneys.

Attorneys supplied by law firms and legal aid societies have helped parents resolve diverse problems that directly and indirectly affect their children’s health, e.g., loss of benefits they’re entitled too, substandard housing, unmet needs for special education.

This broader approach to children’s health recalls the nonprofit I’ve blogged on that partners with hospitals and clinics to secure and fill “prescriptions” for more healthful and secure living conditions.

The AAP’s recommendation could, in the best of worlds, expand the project model to a major sector of our healthcare system, shifting its focus from care to health, as the project’s founder intends.

There’d be ripple effects beyond the immediate health of children. Better health and better economic prospects for them as adults. Better health for their parents too.

Still not the be-all and end-all. The food insecurity pediatricians would identify, the further needs social workers would surface and make referrals for, the problems attorneys would tackle are all rooted in poverty — the “causes of causes,” as we’re told epidemiologists refer to it.

We’re not going to cure poverty by ensuring that malnourished children have enough of the right kinds of things to eat and a warm, mold-free place to live. But having many thousands more widely respected, vocal champions could make a difference.

 


Obama Wants to Do More About Summer Hunger Too

February 8, 2016

As I was polishing off my post on how the Senate Agriculture Committee went at the problem of summer hunger, the White House previewed two child nutrition initiatives in the budget the President will soon propose. One is a more expansive version of the electronic benefits transfer option.

As I’ve said, the Senate Ag Committee’s version of a new Child Nutrition Act would have the U.S. Department of Agriculture distribute a limited number of EBT cards for summer food purchases to a limited number of states.

Some limited number of families in those states would get cards loaded with $30 per month, per eligible child, i.e., one who’s eligible for free or reduced-price meals during the school year. By 2020, families with a total of no more than 285,000 such children would have the cards.

Roughly 22 million children now get free or reduced-price school meals. Some of them can get free summer meals and/or snacks through an existing program the Ag Committee seeks to expand. So it’s hard to know how much the EBT complement would reduce summer hunger.

This much we do know. The bill would provide a total of $150 million from Fiscal Year 2018 through Fiscal Year 2020. USDA could then spend any money left over until it was gone. End of the EBT option then, unless a future Congress extends it.

The President’s plan would create a permanent summer EBT card program. His proposed budget would provide $12 billion over the 10-year window generally used to cost out federal spending proposals.

The program would phase in, beginning in the summer of 2017. Families with a total of nearly a million children would get a food budget boost then, according to a USDA fact sheet.

This is roughly four times as many as would initially benefit under the Ag Committee’s bill. Nine years later, when all states could participate, the number of children benefited would increase to nearly 20 million.

Families would initially get $45 a month per eligible child. The fact sheet uses the same definition of eligibility as the Ag Committee’s bill — at least so far as family income is concerned. The maximum would be 185% of the federal poverty line — roughly $37,300 a year for a single parent/two-child family if the program existed today.

We’ll need to see the budget to know how much further the proposals track — or perhaps rules, if Congress adopted the President’s. Big if.

The summer EBT card initiative is one of those evidence-based solutions we’re enjoined to favor. USDA conducted a two-year pilot, testing several variations.

Experts from three independent consulting firms found, among other things, that the cards led to “a substantial reduction” in very low food security — roughly equivalent to out-and-out hunger for at least one family member, at least some of the time.

The cards prevented such dire food insecurity for about a third of the children whose families received them. And the children generally ate more healthfully too.

A higher benefit than now proposed reduced food insecurity at the household level, i.e., among the adults as well as the children. This, USDA says, shows that parents used the extra food-purchasing money to meet the children’s “most severe needs” — rather, one notes, than easing hunger somewhat for themselves as well.

Splitting the difference between the higher and lower benefits tested, as the proposed budget will, leaves them at risk of summer hunger.

But for the time being, our federal policymakers have decided to focus on child nutrition. And there are good and proper reasons for that, if one must choose. A plethora of research documents the diverse harms children suffer from hunger and poor diets.

So it’s good to see strong bipartisan support for a better Child Nutrition Act in the Senate Agriculture Committee. And good to see the President apparently ready to sign the bill, should it come to him.

Good as well to see him trying to move policy further on child hunger — and not only during the summer. He’ll propose an expanded automatic enrollment process for free and reduced-price meals during the school year too.

Will leave such details as we’ve got to the White House announcement — at least, for the time being.

 

 


On Snow, Charitable Giving and Need

February 4, 2016

Can’t altogether put the big snowstorm behind me. For one thing, the city left the hard-packed drift behind my car. But that’s not what I want to write about. On the contrary. It’s why I wasn’t snowed in and anxious as all get-out.

Even before the snow stopped, I could open my front door, where it tends to pile up, and walk safely to my gate. One of my neighbors shoveled my steps and front walk twice during the storm and again the following day. Cleared the sidewalk in front too.

His wife had made a first pass at the walk as night fell — and snow swirled. She’d called in the morning to find out if I needed anything and again the next day. I mentioned my worries about a power outage.

Well, I should come over to their house, since they’d have a fire going. And power loss or no, would I like to join them for dinner?

Now, these are people I don’t know well — just neighbors whom I chat with when we chance to see one another. But they went out of their way to care for my most critical need — and to let me know they cared.

So did total strangers.

When the snow finally stopped and the sun came out, I decided I should start unburying my car. I knew I didn’t have to strength to do it all at once. (It was barely distinguishable from the drafts fore and aft.) So I planned to do it in stages.

Three young men in a truck pulled over and asked whether I’d like help. I told them I couldn’t pay them unless they’d accept a check. (I’d realized only after the storm started that my provisioning had omitted a trip to the ATM.)

No check wanted. They just pulled out their shovels and dug for awhile — enough so I could get into the car and out of my parking space should I dare to drive. (I didn’t.)

But I returned to the car task the following day. Up walked another young man. Could he help? He didn’t want to be paid, he assured me.

And he would have gone on digging even longer than he did if I hadn’t said we should call it quits — this so I could retreat to the house and get blood flowing in my fingers.

Reflecting on my snow days experience, I’m struck — and moved — by how charitable these people were. That’s the word that pops to mind when I retell the story to myself.

We’re accustomed to seeing it in the phrase “charitable giving” or its kindred “charitable gift.” These , of course, refer to donations of money or things of value to organizations that, in this country, have registered with the Internal Revenue Service as 501(3)(c)s.

But the word came into our language, through French, from the Latin caritas. Long before it migrated, it had come to mean selfless love for one’s fellow beings — the feeling that inspires caring acts, including giving alms to the poor.

But the love, not the donations was what qualified charity as a Christian virtue — in some Biblical texts and later teachings the greatest.

I’m not trying to convert my snow story into a sermon. I do, however, think there’s a lesson about giving and need.

We see people in need every day — and know about many more through our media sources, advertisements and the solicitations we receive, especially toward the end of each tax year.

Some of us may give money directly to people who ask for it as we pass them by on the street. I doubt many of us give to everyone who asks, though I’ve only my own conduct and what I see as evidence.

We who’ve got the wherewithal tend to respond to the needs of those we only read or hear about by charitable giving in the usual sense. But we, the American public, split when it comes to public policies. If we didn’t, we’d have a quite different set — and different elected officials making them.

Consider, for example, SNAP (the food stamp program). It’s supposed to address needs for food that poor and near-poor people can’t otherwise afford.

But as you read this, more than a million people are near to losing their SNAP benefits because they’re able-bodied, have no dependents living with them and can’t meet the work requirements Congress imposed when it ended welfare as we knew it. “Can’t” is the proper word here, given the barriers they face.

Conservatives like work requirements. And we don’t see much pushback from progressives — at least, not as a matter of principle. Trouble is poor people need cash or near-cash assistance to survive.

Now I’m not ready to argue that we should give free food, housing and the like to work-able people who purportedly laze about in comfortable hammocks.

But who believes that any able-bodied (and minded) adult without dependents would choose not to work at least half-time or participate in a job training program because s/he could get some free food — less than $2.00 per meal, on average?

We’ve got a modern-day version of the old distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. Those who don’t work or prepare for work in some specified way can’t have their basic needs met — unless they’re too young, too old or too severely disabled.

Few basic needs met for the too young, however, unless their state exempts them from the five-year, lifetime limit on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. Most states don’t.

Returning — thought I never would, didn’t you? — to me and the snow days. No one who helped me had decided I was a worthy sort. No one tried to ascertain whether I’d put my back into shoveling out.

They simply felt a charitable calling. Surely we could have more of that in our public policies without jeopardizing the work ethic of our poor fellow creatures.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 233 other followers