The Trump administration should withdraw its proposal for tougher eligibility rules for SNAP because of the harmful effects it would have on vulnerable families, said the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on Thursday. An estimated 1.9 million U.S. households would lose benefits, with four heartland states on the list of nine states facing the largest proportional losses, according to an analysis funded by the foundation.
While the regulation would have an impact on 9 percent of households nationwide, it would affect 18 percent of households in Wisconsin, followed by 17 percent in North Dakota, 16 percent in Delaware, Iowa, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington State, and 15 percent in Minnesota and Texas. Some 233,000 households would lose benefits in Texas, the highest total for any state. All but 11 states would be affected to some degree.
“Under the proposed rule, millions of vulnerable families will have an even harder time making ends meet and putting food on the table,” said Richard Besser, chief executive of the foundation. “Any reforms to SNAP should reduce food insecurity, not exacerbate it. We urge USDA to withdraw this rule and reconsider its approach to SNAP.”
When he unveiled the proposal in July, Agriculture Secretary Sonny said it would stop states from “taking advantage of a loophole” to load SNAP rolls. The proposal would rein in so-called categorical eligibility, which was created as part of welfare reform in 1996. Advocates of “cat el” say it helps people with high housing and childcare expenses and an income that is above the usual cut-off point for food stamps.
Under “cat el,” if someone is eligible for assistance in a social welfare program, they can be automatically considered for food stamps. The usual asset limits for SNAP do not apply to these applicants, though they must still have a low enough income under SNAP calculations to qualify for benefits. Critics, often political conservatives, say states find ways, such as handing out brochures or allowing high gross incomes, to qualify people for “cat el” without actually providing assistance. The administration wants to restrict categorical eligibility to people who receive at least $50 a month for six months in welfare or assistance such as subsidized work or childcare. “By establishing clear standards and requiring that benefits be ongoing and substantial, the proposal will ensure SNAP benefits go toward Americans most in need,” said the USDA announcement.
The Mathematica consultancy, which did the analysis, based its findings on the “cat el” proposal on the SNAP caseload in 2016, when 44.2 million people received benefits that averaged $125.40 per month, per person. Enrollment at present is much lower — 35.9 million people at latest count — due to economic growth and lower unemployment rates.
“This simulation gives policymakers insight into the populations potentially affected and allows them to plan for ways to address the needs that their states will face if the proposed rule takes effect,” said Sarah Lauffer, a senior research programmer at Mathematica.
In 20 states, at least 10 percent of SNAP households would become ineligible, said Mathematica. The 1.9 million affected households would include 789,000 households in poverty, 686,000 with children, and 619,000 with elderly individuals.
When Mathematica looked at the impact on individuals, it found that 3.6 million people, or 8 percent of 2016 enrollment, would be affected. The seven states where the impact would be highest are North Dakota and Washington State, with 18 percent of households affected, followed by Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, and Wisconsin at 16 percent and Vermont at 15 percent.
An interactive map showing Mathematica’s estimates of the impact in each state is available here.