In Focus: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Apr 03, 2013 | Permalink »
States Strengthen Work Support Strategies in First Year of Initiative
In the midst of tighter budgets and cuts in benefits spending, some states are focusing on more effective administration of public benefits that support working families. They're doing so because they know that these benefits, which include programs focused on nutrition, health care and child care, help families become and stay employed and promote children's success in school and life. By streamlining eligibility processes and cutting red tape for these programs, states can reduce administrative costs and make it less daunting for working families to get the help they need.
For example, states involved in the Work Support Strategies (WSS) project are making administrative and programmatic decisions that help families more easily acquire benefits for which they're eligible. Reports on the initial planning year of the project (2010-2011), released by the Urban Institute today, indicate that participating states have made progress in simplifying application processes, streamlining eligibility policies, and coordinating the administration of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP - formerly Food Stamps), Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and child care assistance.
As a partner in the WSS project, CLASP provides technical assistance to states to strengthen the administration of their child care assistance programs in the context of the broader WSS focus on coordinating across multiple programs. In the first year of the project, WSS states took steps to reduce barriers to families' enrollment in child care assistance programs and to improve continuity of care for children. Read More >>
Mar 20, 2013 | Permalink »
SNAP Benefits in the Crosshairs of Debate on Spending
By Helly Lee and Lavanya Mohan
The budget resolutions introduced last week by House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray are miles apart on funding for anti-poverty programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid.
The Ryan budget proposes drastic changes. It would slash SNAP by $135 billion and Medicaid by $810 billion over 10 years through new block grants-cutting off tens of millions of people from critical health and nutrition assistance. With so many still struggling to make ends meet after a brutal recession, this is the wrong idea at the wrong time. As our colleague, Elizabeth Lower-Basch has explained, claims that block granting has been successful for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are deeply flawed and misguided, and SNAP and Medicaid are even less suited for such an approach. While the Ryan budget claims to protect the safety net, his approach would actually shred it, making it less responsive to the needs of low-income people.
The Murray budget takes a different approach to safety net programs and does not call for fundamental changes. Her budget acknowledges the effectiveness of SNAP in responding to the needs of millions of people during the recession. Part of what makes SNAP so effective is that it responds to changes in the economy. This also means that it decreases as the economy recovers and less people depend on it to make ends meet - a trend we expect to observe over the next ten years.
Furthermore, while the Ryan budget proposes to repeal the expansion of Medicaid in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Murray budget maintains it.
These resolutions do not set spending levels and will not become law, but they do serve as a guiding framework for Congress as it works on budget bills. As Congress debates spending priorities in the coming months, it is critical to protect safety net programs and ensure that low-income individuals are not shouldering the cost of a balanced budget.
Threats to SNAP continue outside of the budget debate as well with Senator Pat Roberts' bill, S. 458, proposing drastic cuts totaling $36 billion. These cuts target nutrition programs despite the mounting research that shows the positive effects of SNAP on early childhood development, with continued positive effects on adult outcomes. In contrast, Congressman Jim McGovern continues the fight to ensure SNAP is protected through H.Res. 90. That bill, which has a growing list of co-sponsors, expresses the sense of the House that SNAP funding should be fully maintained in any upcoming legislation.
CLASP will continue to monitor the progress of current and prospective legislation affecting SNAP benefits and the impact they have on low-income families.
Mar 13, 2013 | Permalink »
SNAP, Medicaid Block Grants Would Weaken the Already-Fragile Safety Net
Once again, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has put forward a budget proposal that calls for block granting of both Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps). Rep. Ryan justifies this proposal by citing the supposed "success" of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant as a model.
As we have explained before, TANF has too often not been a success as either a safety net or a springboard to opportunity. The poverty reduction that Rep. Ryan cites was limited to the boom years of the 1990s; child poverty rates had begun to climb even before the recent deep recession. The funding for the block grant has been eroded over time, and state flexibility has led to a patchwork - and often flimsy - safety net. While the number of families receiving cash assistance from TANF rose somewhat during the recession, it did not climb nearly as much as the number of families who might have benefited from such help.
An important role for safety net programs is to be a countercyclical support - meaning that they automatically expand when the economy is bad. This is both essential for the individuals who need assistance, and an important way to stimulate the economy by putting money in the hands of those who will spend it quickly. However, states have much less capacity to provide countercyclical support than the federal government, as they are required to balance their budgets each year. Their revenues decline in tough economic times, and in the absence of countercyclical federal spending, they are often forced to cut benefits just when they are needed the most. This is precisely what happened under TANF. In some states, time limits for receiving support were shortened and thousands of families lost benefits even as the unemployment rate rose to historic levels. Facing revenue shortfalls, many states used the TANF block grant to take the place of state funds for a range of services for low-income families, rather than providing increased cash assistance.