The premiere U.S. antihunger program has failed to adjust to changing needs, said Agriculture Committee chairman Michael Conaway, in opening “without preconceived notions” a top-to-bottom review of the food stamp program. Conaway said he is committed to “strengthening the program to serve as a tool to help individuals move up the economic ladder.” Indiana Republican Jackie Walorski, who chairs the nutrition subcommittee, said the review could take a couple of years.
“While the economy has changed and other welfare programs have adjusted to meet changing needs, it does not appear that SNAP has,” said Conaway. Weak economic growth “has brought in a new group of healthy, working-age recipients who in the past had not used SNAP (food stamps),” he said, before noting with favor how welfare programs have begun to provide additional services, such as transportation and child care, to help people move into work.
“The role of the program has to change,” said University of Maryland professor Douglas Besharov, who said food stamps, while viewed as a hunger prevention program, actually was the primary U.S. income-support program. Besharov said more stringent work requirements were needed and called for more coordination of food stamps, welfare, Supplemental Security Income, and disability programs to eliminate disincentives to work. “A possible solution is to combine – or at least align – the administration of these program and to add what the Europeans call ‘labor activation’ (akin to job search requirements) to all recipients of government assistance,” said Besharov.
High enrollment in food stamps is a reflection of poor economic performance and erosion of wages, said Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank. As far as work requirements under food stamps, “for childless adults, they are the most stringent of any federal program” – three months of benefits in a three-year period unless there is a waiver because of high unemployment. Since welfare reform, food stamps has become “principally a work support program,” he said. In 2013, 52 percent of participating households with children were employed and only 11 percent relied wholly on welfare. Greenstein said research indicated food stamps’ “overall impact on work to be small.”
Collin Peterson, the Democratic leader on the committee, said, “I don’t think we should do anything” to the food stamp program, which was renewed in the 2014 farm law. He said Republican leaders “over-played their hand” by proposing big cuts during the farm bill debate and lost an opportunity for reform. Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern said two-thirds of food stamp recipients are children, disabled or elderly. “I don’t know how tougher work requirements help them.”
Georgia Republican Rick Allen said food stamps were essential to assure people get enough to eat but, “Somehow, it has to prime the pump and not be the pump.” Florida Republican Ted Yoho said, “Success should be measured by retiring a program” and speculated on reducing food stamps, now 80 percent of USDA spending, to 30 percent.
A top goal for Republican conservatives during the drafting of the farm bill was to set tougher work requirements and to tighten eligibility standards for food stamps. Democrats insisted successfully that cuts be limited to closing a loophole on utility costs.
The 2014 farm law allotted $200 million for 10 pilot projects to find better ways to assist food stamp recipients in finding work. A tiny amount of food stamp funds are earmarked at present for employment and training.
At latest count, 46.3 million people received food stamps with an average benefit of $127.53 a month. Enrollment peaked at 47.8 million people in December 2012. The program cost a record $80 billion in fiscal 2013. Annual costs more than doubled in the wake of the 2008/09 recession and enrollment climbed by 20 million people. Enrollment and costs are forecast to decline in coming years.