” [image: ] SNAP Beneficiary Impact Statement FNS proposed regulations entitled Revision of Categorical Eligibility in SNAP JULY 24, 2019 – VOLUME 84, NO. 142, Page 35570-35581 Kevin Aslanian, Executive Director Daphne Macklin, Research Analyst Coalition of California welfare Rights Organizations 1111 Howe Ave., Suite 150, Sacramento, CA 95825-8551 Phone: 916-712-0071 Email:
[email protected] Web Page: ccwro.org September 23, 2019 Executive Summary The proposed regulation herein is an attempt: \uf05b\uf020to circumvent the regular order and implement an illegal policy, rejected by Congress, that would increase administrative costs (more money for the bureaucracy); \uf05b\uf020to violate our laws in that a similar proposal was rejected by Congress; \uf05b\uf020to make it more difficult for nutritionally challenged persons to receive food assistance; \uf05b\uf020to take away state flexibility and impose a federal rule thinking that one size fits all; \uf05b\uf020to violate one of the many Trump promises for every new regulation, the Trump administration promised to repeal two (2) federal regulations. DATE: 9-23-2019Public Law 115-334- Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 Rejection of Modifying SNAP Categorical Eligibility Rule House Report 115-661 SEC. 4006. UPDATE TO CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY. Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014) is amended\u2014 (1) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a)\u2014 (A) by striking ”receives benefits” and inserting ”(1) receives cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services”, (B) by striking ”supplemental security” and inserting ”with an income eligibility limit of not more than 130 percent of the poverty line as defined in section 5(c)(1), (2) is elderly or disabled and receives cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services under a State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) with an in- come eligibility limit of not more than 200 percent of the poverty line as defined in section 5(c)(1), (3) receives supplemental security”, and (C) by striking ”or aid” and inserting ”or (4) receives aid”, and (2) in subsection (j)\u2014 (A) by striking ”or who receives benefits” and inserting ”cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services” and (B) by striking ”to have” and inserting ”with an income eligibility limit of not more than 130 percent of the poverty line as defined in section 5(c)(1), or who is elderly or disabled and receives cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services under a State program funded under part A of title IV of the Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) with an income eligibility limit of not more than 200 percent of the poverty line as defined in section 5(c)(1), to have”. H. Report 115-1072 (Conference Report) (25) Update to categorical eligibility The House bill amends section 5(a) and 5(j) of the FNA such that categorical eligibility may only be used in instances where a beneficiary is receiving either cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services such as transportation, childcare, counseling, or other services funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act with an income eligibility limit of not more than 130 percent (200 percent for elderly or disabled) of the poverty line. (Section 4006) The Senate amendment contains no comparable provision. The Conference substitute deletes the House provision. FROM: Kevin Aslanian & Daphne Macklin of CCWRO [image: ] TO: Trump Administration, USDA,FNS SUBJECT: Docket ID Number [FNS-2018-0037] Revision of Categorical Eligibility in SNAP It is with great disappointment that we have to respond to proposed regulations from the Trump Administration after we heard Trump say: One of the very first actions of my administration was to impose a two-for-one rule on new federal regulations. We ordered that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated. The people in the media heard me say that during the campaign many, many times. As a result, the never-ending growth of red tape in America has come to a sudden screeching and beautiful halt. The proposed regulation does not reveal which the two (2) regulations FNS would repeal for this one? Did the President LIE? As is true of many policies of this administration, the cruelty is the point. The Department proposes to substantially limit categorical eligibility for food stamps in a way that targets recipients who do not fit its definition of the deserving poor. The new rules will harm older Americans who are asset rich and cash poor, disabled Americans who cannot participate in work programs, students, and others who may need the food stamp program for short term support, such as unemployed people engaged in job hunting. In doing so, the Department ignores the high levels of food insecurity among these populations, ensuring that more Americans will fall through the cracks and go hungry because of this cruel policy. College students, for instance, experience very high levels of food insecurity. One recent study showed that up to 48% of community college students and 41% of university students have experienced food insecurity. In light of this information, the administration cannot justify excluding students who receive TANF benefits from categorical eligibility for food stamps. (Cite: https:\/\/www.insidehighered.com\/news\/2019\/04\/30\/new-research-finds-discrepancies-estimates-food-insecurity-among-college-students). Categorical eligibility (CE) was designed to reduce the bureaucracy in lieu of increasing the bureaucracy, which is what the proposed regulations do by repealing state flexibility and imposing federally imposed rules that are illegal. They are illegal because they limit the application of CE to certain AFDC\/TANF cases. When TANF was enacted, which diverted millions of dollars that under AFDC (AFDC had 70% of the funds used for payments to families) was used to feed and house poor families to the welfare bureaucracy, Congress also amended provisions of the SNAP program in the same legislation. Thus, Congress was aware of AFDC and TANF funds and its application to CE and did not limit it to certain TANF persons and exclude others when it was considering modifications of both (AFDC and the Food Stamp) programs in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104 193) (PRWORA). Moreover, the Trump Administration tried to make changes to CE during the 2018 farm bill that was soundly rejected by the conference committee. So, what does the Trump administration do? Who cares what Congress did? Why would the Socialist Trump administration care about Congress and the pesty U.S. Constitution? 2018 Farm Bill Rejected Provision 7-24-19 Proposed Regulations to Enact Limit SNAP Categorical Eligibility to those who – receive cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services” Limit SNAP Categorical Eligibility to those who – receive cash assistance or ongoing and substantial services” The proposed regulations reveal the colossal failure of the TANF program. Footnote 8 states: In Fiscal Year 2017, 22.7 percent of combined TANF Federal and State MOE funds were used for basic assistance (e.g., cash); 10.5 percent were used for work, education, and training activities; and 16.1 percent were used for child care. In Fiscal Year 2017, 27 States used less than 50 percent of their TANF Federal and State MOE funds on a combination of basic assistance; work, education, and training activities; and child care. Only 23% of the TANF cash aid payments go to TANF beneficiaries that are ongoing and substantial (compared to 70% under AFDC) while in SNAP over 90% of the benefits go to SNAP beneficiaries. It appears that the Trump Administration would like the SNAP program to become the ineffective TANF program- where most of the money goes to the welfare bureaucracy and a meager 23% goes to the TANF babies and children not in foster care living in deep poverty, by making the SNAP program administratively inefficient. The current CE regulations provide for state flexibility something supported by the Trump administrations and its enablers like the Heritage Foundation and other welfare bureaucracy loving conservative swamp organizations. On page 35571 FNS states: Prior to PRWORA, categorical eligibility for SNAP was conferred by receipt of cash AFDC benefits, as noncash AFDC benefits did not exist. While PRWORA did not modify the categorical eligibility provision in Section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act, the Department recognized that the changes enacted by PRWORA and the move from AFDC to TANF meant that categorical eligibility could be conferred by both cash and non-cash benefits. We fact checked this false assertion and found that it was a false statement. Under AFDC states used AFDC funds, that were matched by 50% for cash payment state expenditures and for non-cash expenditures, including noncash assistance payments in the form of vouchers and vendor payments to profit making vendors, including most likely some of the Trump properties . USDA asks Specifically, the Department is interested in comments on the processes by which TANF-funded programs actually determine applicant financial and non-financial eligibility for the conferring programs, and at what point in the TANF enrollment process this determination and delivery of benefit(s) to the household may take place relative to the SNAP eligibility determination. The TANF eligibility determination is made before Food Stamp\/SNAP benefits are issued in California and we are sure that this is true in all States. USDA asks Department is interested in public comment as to whether and how the benefits from such hourly-based programs [non-cash TANF benefits, such as education and training, job search assistance, or work experience] could be valued for the purposes of conferring categorical eligibility, or other ways to determine whether such benefits could be ongoing and substantial. The best entity to decide the value of non-cash TANF benefits, such as education and training, job search assistance, or work experience are the local entities and not big brother government in Washington Ivory Towers. Non-cash benefits have different values are different states based on the local conditions. The Trump administration officials and supporters have touted, for years, that one-size does not fit all, yet now one size fits all? What happened. Is the Trump Administration becoming socialist administration? USDA asks, The Department is interested in whether eliminating the distinction, or adjusting the 50 percent funding threshold would help streamline SNAP regulations, ensure consistency in serving households through categorical eligibility, and simplify administration. We would respectfully suggest that the percentage of funding should be dependent on the local conditions. The Trump administration officials and supporters have touted for years that one-size does not fit all, yet now one size fits all? What happened. Is the Trump Administration becoming socialist administration? We would also strongly disagree with the following finding by USDA, FNS: The Department finds it reasonable to use the estimates from OMB approved Information Collection 0054 0064 regarding household burden for providing verification and estimates that providing verification would take 4 minutes or .0668 hours per household at initial certification and 6 minutes or .1002 hours at recertification. We are not sure in what reality a household would need 4-6 minutes to provide verification of assets. This shows how removed from reality is this assertion. In California 50% of SNAP applications are denied for reasons other than failing to meet eligibility requirements. 50% of the denials are due to failure to provide verifications or meeting other bureaucratic procedural requirements or better known as barriers to participation . Generally, applicants are told to go home and come back to provide missing verification. That means they take public transportation or walk to the office that can take an hour each way. Then they have to go through security to get into the welfare office. Once in the office, they have to stand in line and check in with the receptionist. Then they have to wait for the worker to call their name. This can take several hours. By no stretch of anyone’s imagination, is this a 4 to 6-minute household burden. We were not able to comment on most of the numbers in the data table on page 35580 because it was incomprehensible for the public to comment on it intelligently. We have no doubt that the Trump Administration understands what this table means, but that does not help us to provide comments. Curiously the agency justification for the proposed changes identifies no specific states practices or numbers of participants who are now SNAP program participants that would be impacted by what is being proposed. The explanatory statements most specific example states that: Due to the broad flexibility afforded States in the construction of TANF-funded pro- grams, these households, who would not otherwise have qualified for SNAP due to their income or resources, are considered categorically eligible and therefore able to receive SNAP. As a result of these policies, it is estimated that 4.1% of currently participating SNAP households (767,000 households or 1.4 million individuals) have resources above the SNAP limit and 4.9% have incomes above the Federal SNAP gross income limit of 130% FPL (914,000 households or 1.7 million individuals). See Federal Register \/ Vol. 84, No. 142 \/ Wednesday, July 24, 2019 \/ Proposed Rules 35571-2, The report does not specify how it comes to the conclusion that 914,000 households equals 1.7 million individuals. Clearly without more credible data, this Administration’s asserted supportive documentation for the proposed change cannot be considered valid or reliable. Finally with respect to America’s senior citizens, the proposal appears to ignore the fact that older Americans are the fastest growing food insecure population in the country. Since 2007, the number of seniors facing hunger has grown by 65%. In 2014, the National Foundation to End Senior Hunger found that 16% of seniors reported experiencing food insecurity. (Cite: https:\/\/www.aginginplace.org\/the-facts-behind-senior-hunger\/.) The number of people age 60 and older is expected to swell to over 100 million by 2060. A disproportionate number of seniors facing hunger are non-white Americans, meaning that these new rules may have a disparate impact along racial as well as generational lines. According to one article ”Seniors who live in the south are far more likely to be food insecure; nine of the 10 states with the highest rates of food insecurity are in the south. Seventeen percent of African American seniors and 18% of Hispanic seniors are food insecure, compared to just 7% of Caucasian seniors. One-third of food insecure senior citizens have a disability Nearly 1 in 5 seniors living with grandchildren are food insecure. )[footnoteRef:1] [1: https:\/\/www.moveforhunger.org\/food-insecurity-among-senior-citizens-growing-population-ages\/ September 23, 2019. ] Cutting nutrition support to older Americans is exactly the opposite of what we need to do to protect our retired citizens. The Department’s own analysis concedes that older Americans will be disproportionately affected by these rules. Yet the Department does not propose any means of mitigating the negative impact and civil rights implications of these disparate impacts. In summary, the Trump Administration has already tried to change this rule the American way through legislation Public Law 115-334 and it was soundly rejected by the Republican Senate. Now that they have failed, they are trying to do it the Soviet Socialist way- the autocratic way the hell with Congress. We oppose this Unamerican Act of the Trump Administration. [bookmark: _GoBack] Page 1 9-10-19 – CCWRO Testimony on CE proposed federal regulation VOLUME 84, NO. 142, Page 35570-35581 of July 24, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________________ MWC leu ”