SNAP Benefits Will Be Cut for All Participants in November 2013
The 2009 Recovery Act’s temporary boost to Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits is scheduled to end on November 1,
2013, resulting in a benefit cut for every SNAP household. For families
of three, the cut will be $29 a month — a total of $319 for November
2013 through September 2014, the remaining months of fiscal year 2014.
[2]
That’s a serious loss, especially in light of the very low amount of
basic SNAP benefits. Without the Recovery Act’s boost, SNAP benefits
will average less than
$1.40 per person per meal in 2014. (See
Table 2 for estimates of the size of the SNAP cut in each state in
fiscal year 2014.) Nationally, the total cut is estimated to be $5
billion in fiscal year 2014.
It seems unlikely that Congress
will enact legislation to remedy this problem, as President Obama and
some members of Congress have proposed. Consequently, states need to
prepare for the benefit cuts — including determining how they will
provide information about the upcoming benefit reduction to
participating households and other stakeholders as well as how to manage
increased client inquiries when the cut takes effect.
Background on the Benefit Cut
In
response to the economic downturn, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) increased Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits across the board as a way of
delivering high “bang-for-the-buck” economic stimulus and easing
hardship. ARRA increased SNAP maximummonthly benefits by 13.6 percent
beginning in April 2009.
[3]
Benefits increased for all participating households and by the same
amount by household size (except for those households that qualified for
the minimum benefit) in 2009. For example, for a one-person household,
the added benefit was $24 a month; for two persons, it was $44 a month;
for three persons, it was $63 a month; and for four persons, it was $80
a month. The minimum benefit (which is available to eligible one- and
two-person households that otherwise qualify for a small benefit or no
benefit) rose from $14 to $16. Because households that receive less
than the maximum benefit received the same fixed dollar increase, the
increase to
average benefits was larger in percentage terms: about 20 percent.
ARRA
provided that SNAP benefit levels would continue at the new higher
amount until the program’s regular annual inflation adjustments to the
maximum SNAP benefit exceeded those set by ARRA. The maximum SNAP
benefit levels for each household size, which are set each October 1,
are equal to the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) from the preceding
June scaled to each household size. The TFP is the cost of U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) food plan for a family of four to
purchase and prepare a bare-bones diet at home.
[4]
At the time ARRA was enacted, food price inflation was expected to be
high and the TFP cost was expected to exceed the ARRA level in fiscal
year 2014. Food price inflation, however, turned out to be
lower
than expected over the 2009 to 2013 period, resulting in the pushing
out of the date that the TFP was expected to exceed the ARRA level.
[5]
In
August 2010, Congress passed and the President signed P.L. 111-226,
which accelerated the sunset of the ARRA benefit increase to April 2014
and used the estimated savings for state fiscal relief through
additional federal funding for school districts to maintain teachers’
jobs and maintaining a higher federal match for Medicaid costs. Four
months later, the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (P.L. 111-296), which
reauthorized Child Nutrition programs, further accelerated the sunset
date of ARRA to October 31, 2013, to offset the cost of the
legislation. As a result, beginning on November 1, 2013, SNAP benefit
levels will be based on the cost of the June 2013 TFP, which is lower
than the ARRA levels.
On August 1, 2013 USDA published the June
2013 TFP — $632 — a $36 decrease from the current maximum monthly
benefit for a family of four under ARRA. (See Table 1 for an estimate
of the benefit cut by household size.)
[6] This significant benefit cut will likely cause hardship for many households.
[7]
The total size of the cut will be approximately $5 billion in fiscal
year 2014 and, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s May 2013
projections for food inflation in coming years, an additional $6 billion
across fiscal years 2015 and 2016.
Table 1
SNAP Cut by Household Size Beginning November 2013 |
| | ARRA Maximum Benefits Through Oct. 2013 | Maximum Benefits Beginning Nov. 2013 | Monthly Cut | Total Cut FY 2014 |
| Household of 1 | $200 | $189 | -$11 | -$121 |
| Household of 2 | $367 | $347 | -$20 | -$220 |
| Household of 3 | $526 | $497 | -$29 | -$319 |
| Household of 4 | $668 | $632 | -$36 | -$396 |
| Source:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, “SNAP – Fiscal Year 2014
Cost-of-Living Adjustments and ARRA Sunset Impact on Allotments,” August
1, 2013. |
The
cuts are especially painful in light of the inadequacy of existing
benefit levels. In a report issued by the Institute of Medicine and the
National Research Council, nutrition experts identified several
shortcomings with the current SNAP benefit allotment; noted that most
household benefit levels are based on unrealistic assumptions about the
cost of food, time preparation, and access to grocery stores; and
recommended evaluating ways of changing the benefit calculation to
better ensure that households have enough resources to purchase an
adequate diet.
[8]
SNAP has never experienced a reduction in benefit levels that affected all participants.
[9]
There have been some cuts in specific states, but these cuts have not
typically been as large or affected as many people as what will occur
this November.
[10]
Benefit Cuts Will Increase Hardship and Food Insecurity
These
cuts will likely cause hardship for some SNAP participants, who will
include 22 million children in 2014 (10 million of whom live in “deep
poverty,” with family incomes below
half of the poverty line)
and 9 million people who are elderly or have a serious disability.
Cutting these households’ benefits will reduce their ability to purchase
food. This cut will be the equivalent of taking away 21 meals per
month for a family of four, or 16 meals for a family of three, based on
calculations using the $1.70 to $2 per meal provided for in the Thrifty
Food Plan. USDA research has found that the Recovery Act’s benefit
boost cut the number of households in which one or more persons had to
skip meals or otherwise eat less because they lacked money — what USDA
calls “very low food security” — by about 500,000 households in 2009.
[11]
More
recent research finds that boosting SNAP benefits during the summer for
households with school-aged children who don’t have access to USDA’s
summer food program
cut very low food security among these households by nearly 20 percent.
[12]
Given
this research and the growing awareness of the inadequacy of the
current SNAP benefit allotments, we can reasonably assume that a
reduction in SNAP benefit levels of this size will significantly
increase the number of poor households that have difficulty affording
adequate food this fall.
Preparing for the Benefit Cuts
Because
this cut will affect all households that participate in SNAP and
because of the size of the cut, states may wish to begin planning for
how they will implement the reductions in November. The primary
considerations for such planning are:
- Informing SNAP
participants, advocates, and service providers who work with SNAP
participants and other key stakeholders about the scheduled benefit cut
so that they can plan and prepare;
- Managing the influx of client inquiries and appeals in November related to the benefit reduction;
- Implementing the benefit reduction, i.e. staff training, programming, and other systems requirements; and
- Educating federal policymakers about the anticipated impacts of the cut in the state.
This
paper focuses on items 1 and 2, which are primarily about engaging and
informing stakeholders in developing a plan for the upcoming benefit
cut.
As a first step, states may wish to work with local service
providers, client advocate groups, and other stakeholders to inform
them of the upcoming benefit reduction and to solicit their assistance
in preparing for the cut. States will want to ensure these groups are
aware of the issue — particularly its non-discretionary nature and its
timing. Interested parties will likely include key state legislators,
the retailer community, human services staff, advocates, legal aid
groups, the emergency food network, the state’s SNAP electronic benefit
transfer (EBT) vendor, other parts of state government that serve the
same population (such as representatives from Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, Medicaid, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
and child care programs), and key municipal authorities.
Clients
may turn to these entities for information about the cut as well as
seek financial or other assistance from them when the SNAP cut takes
effect. Moreover, representatives from these organizations can help
SNAP state agencies anticipate the consequences of such a large-scale
benefit cut and take action to prepare. For example, some clients may
complain to their state legislators about the benefit reduction. In
different circumstances, state legislative staff might bring these
complaints to the state agency and expect swift resolution. Given the
non-discretionary nature of this change, however, state legislative
staff might be interested in working with the agency to consider an
alternative response to constituent complaints such as providing
constituents with information regarding other resources to meet their
food needs.
The earlier that states begin to engage and work
with key stakeholders on the upcoming benefit cut, the more prepared
organizations who work with SNAP clients will be for its impact.
Advance planning will also give some organizations the ability to
document the impact of the cuts on clients with the goal of sharing that
information with federal policymakers.
Informing SNAP Participants
The
benefit cut in November will affect approximately 23 million low-income
households. It likely will cause hardship for many households, so SNAP
participants will be better prepared for the change if they know about
it in advance. With clear information about the upcoming change, SNAP
participants can assess and attempt to plan for the cut’s impact on
their food and family budget. Some may seek assistance from other
programs or service providers. Others may use this opportunity to ask
the state agency to reevaluate their income and circumstances for SNAP
in the hopes that they may qualify for additional assistance. While
these actions will not mitigate the full effects of the cuts, they may
help some vulnerable individuals and families. In addition, if state
agencies can inform program participants about the change early, there
is likely to be less confusion among participants. Less confusion may
reduce client inquires and appeal requests to the state agency.
Federal
SNAP rules require state agencies to publicize changes that affect a
significant portion of the caseload, known as a “mass change.”
[13]
At a minimum, states must publicize mass changes through “the news
media; posters in certification offices…or other sites frequented by
certified households; or general notices mailed to households.”
[14]
While
a mailed notice to each affected household is not required under
federal rules, states would be wise to consider such an approach.
General messaging about the benefit cut will be an important aspect of
each state’s plan to get the word out about the upcoming change; many
participants will want and seek out more detail about the nature of the
cut and its impact on their household. States may be able to avoid many
of these inquiries by delivering detailed information about the change
through a mailed notice. Clients are less likely to call or visit the
state SNAP agency to ask about the cut if they have been sent detailed
information about the change. Moreover, households have the right to
appeal the benefit reduction.
[15]
While this appeal will only be successful if the state applies the
reduction incorrectly, states will have to process these appeal
requests, which could drain administrative resources. Many households
are less likely to request a fair hearing on the benefit cut if they
understand it is a change mandated by federal law and that the state has
no discretion in the matter.
In addition to sending clients
notices of the change, states may want to consider other means to convey
that a significant change is coming that affects all households. State
agencies have many means of conveying information to SNAP households.
These include:
- Traditional mail. States may opt to
send a special mass mailing, postcard mailing, or combine information
about the November cut with another scheduled client mailing such as
notices of eligibility, periodic reporting forms, and recertification
applications.
- In-person transactions. Millions of
households will come in contact with state human services agency staff
in the next several months, prior to the benefit cut. They may call in
to report a change, visit a local office, or complete a telephone
interview. This is an important opportunity for the state to inform
clients of the upcoming scheduled cut.
- Electronic
communication. Many states collect e-mail and client cell phone numbers
and are able to communicate with clients electronically. Some use
social media such as Facebook and Twitter feeds to communicate with
clients and stakeholders.
- Telephone recordings. States
can play recorded messages about the change for individuals who are
waiting to speak with a human services employee on the telephone. Some
states also have the ability to call clients with automated recorded
calls.
- Agency websites. States can post alerts with time sensitive information on their websites.
- Agency newsletters.
- Flyers and posters in local offices.
- Media. Media outlets such as newspapers, television, and radio may be interested in covering this change as a news story.
- EBT
receipts and customer service call centers. Some states are able to
print special messages on households’ receipts from EBT transactions.
And, some states may have the ability to work with their EBT vendor to
play messages about the change for clients who are waiting to speak with
a customer service representative.
State agencies can
amplify their own messaging by coordinating their communication efforts
with community-based organizations, retailers, and other organizations
that work directly with low-income communities that participate in
SNAP. State agencies, local service providers, and client advocate
groups each have extensive experience conveying important information to
low-income communities and SNAP participants. Working together, they
can create materials that convey the key facts and anticipate likely
questions from program participants. Key messages that are important to
consider are:
- Federal law requires a cut in maximum
SNAP benefits in November. This change means that your household’s SNAP
monthly allotment will also fall at that time.
- The cut
will be about $10 per person per month. For example, the benefit cut to
monthly benefits for a household of three will be $29. For households
that receive the $16 minimum benefit, the new minimum benefit level will
be $15 per month.
- We know that shopping and eating with
reduced benefits will be difficult, but this change is required by
federal law and we cannot stop it.
- Where you can get more
information: The state agency will send you a notice with more details
about this change and how it will impact your benefits in [insert month
of notice]. You can also call [insert the state’s toll-free number] if
you have questions.
In any effort, it will be important
to ensure that the messages are accurate and that the organization
conveying the information is prepared with how to handle questions,
either by training its staff about the change or knowing where to refer
clients who seek more information.
Preparing State Operations to Handle Client Questions
Even
with a robust communications strategy, many households may not
understand why their November SNAP amount is lower than the previous
month. These clients may visit or call their local SNAP office to find
out why their benefits were cut and where they can get food to help fill
the shortfall caused by the benefit cuts. Others clients who do not
understand that federal law mandated this change may request a fair
hearing for the reduction. State and local SNAP staff will need to be
prepared for this influx of inquiries and the resulting workload. It is
important to note that this fall is already likely to be an extremely
busy time for state health and human services agencies as they will
begin taking applications for health coverage under the Affordable Care
Act.
States will need to educate all of their staff who engage
with program participants and the public, such as eligibility workers
and call center staff, about the benefit reduction. Staff will need
information about the decrease, state plans for announcing it, and how
to handle client inquiries about the reduction. In some cases, clients
may call the private vendor that provides customer service for the
state’s SNAP debit card. As noted above, states may wish to review
their contracts with their EBT vendors to explore whether the vendor can
provide information about the November reduction and what it might mean
for SNAP households.
Part of staff training about the change
could be to remind workers about the importance of making sure that
participants are getting the full amount of benefits for which they
qualify. In particular, many households who are eligible for deductions
that could lower their net income and result in increased benefits do
not always take advantage of them. This is particularly true of the
excess medical and the child care deductions. States could use this
period leading up to November to place special emphasis on ensuring
households are claiming all available deductions. This is important at
any time, but it could be particularly helpful now in reducing the
hardship that results from the cut.
Conclusion
The
upcoming cuts to SNAP benefits will be significant and will have
far-reaching impacts on low-income individuals and families. They will
likely increase hardship for the more than 47 million Americans who rely
upon SNAP to meet their basic nutritional needs. With Congress
unlikely to act to mitigate the cuts, states need to begin planning for
the reduction to ensure that clients and the many organizations and SNAP
stakeholders who work with them are aware of the upcoming change and
its effects.
Table 2
The SNAP ARRA Termination: Estimated State-by-State Impact in Fiscal Year 2014 |
| | Total SNAP Benefit Cut to State
(in millions of dollars, from November 2013
through September 2014) | Number of SNAP Recipients in FY 2014
(all of whom are impacted by the cut) |
| Total | Share of Total State Population |
| Alabama | -$98 | 910,000 | 19% |
| Alaska | -$12 | 95,000 | 13% |
| Arizona | -$109 | 1,101,000 | 17% |
| Arkansas | -$52 | 501,000 | 17% |
| California | -$457 | 4,168,000 | 11% |
| Colorado | -$55 | 511,000 | 10% |
| Connecticut | -$44 | 424,000 | 12% |
| Delaware | -$16 | 154,000 | 17% |
| District of Columbia | -$15 | 144,000 | 22% |
| Florida | -$379 | 3,552,000 | 18% |
| Georgia | -$210 | 1,947,000 | 19% |
| Hawaii | -$33 | 190,000 | 13% |
| Idaho | -$24 | 230,000 | 14% |
| Illinois | -$220 | 2,031,000 | 16% |
| Indiana | -$98 | 925,000 | 14% |
| Iowa | -$43 | 421,000 | 13% |
| Kansas | -$33 | 317,000 | 11% |
| Kentucky | -$94 | 875,000 | 20% |
| Louisiana | -$98 | 920,000 | 20% |
| Maine | -$26 | 251,000 | 19% |
| Maryland | -$82 | 774,000 | 13% |
| Massachusetts | -$95 | 889,000 | 13% |
| Michigan | -$183 | 1,775,000 | 18% |
| Minnesota | -$55 | 556,000 | 10% |
| Mississippi | -$70 | 664,000 | 22% |
| Missouri | -$96 | 933,000 | 15% |
| Montana | -$13 | 131,000 | 13% |
| Nebraska | -$18 | 180,000 | 10% |
| Nevada | -$37 | 359,000 | 13% |
| New Hampshire | -$12 | 117,000 | 9% |
| New Jersey | -$90 | 873,000 | 10% |
| New Mexico | -$47 | 442,000 | 21% |
| New York | -$332 | 3,185,000 | 16% |
| North Carolina | -$166 | 1,708,000 | 17% |
| North Dakota | -$6 | 57,000 | 8% |
| Ohio | -$193 | 1,847,000 | 16% |
| Oklahoma | -$66 | 615,000 | 16% |
| Oregon | -$84 | 819,000 | 21% |
| Pennsylvania | -$183 | 1,779,000 | 14% |
| Rhode Island | -$20 | 181,000 | 17% |
| South Carolina | -$93 | 875,000 | 18% |
| South Dakota | -$11 | 104,000 | 12% |
| Tennessee | -$141 | 1,345,000 | 20% |
| Texas | -$411 | 3,997,000 | 15% |
| Utah | -$26 | 253,000 | 9% |
| Vermont | -$10 | 101,000 | 16% |
| Virginia | -$99 | 941,000 | 11% |
| Washington | -$114 | 1,113,000 | 16% |
| West Virginia | -$36 | 350,000 | 19% |
| Wisconsin | -$89 | 861,000 | 15% |
| Wyoming | -$4 | 39,000 | 7% |
| Guam | -$7 | 45,000 | N/A |
| Virgin Islands | -$4 | 27,000 | N/A |
| Puerto Rico Block Grant | $0 | N/A | N/A |
| Total | -$5,000 | 47,600,000 | 15% |
Source:
CBPP estimates based on USDA’s June 2013 Thrifty Food Plan, CBO May
2013 baseline, 2011 USDA data on SNAP Household Characteristics,
recent USDA administrative data on the number of SNAP participants,
and U.S. Census Bureau data on state populations.
Notes: The number of SNAP recipients shown is for a typical, or
average month in fiscal year 2014. In addition to the cuts shown in
this table, an additional $6 billion in cuts are expected to occur in
fiscal years 2015 and 2016 under CBO’s May 2013 food inflation
projections. |
End notes:
[1] Art Foley, a consultant to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, assisted with the preparation of this paper.
[2]
The cut is larger than we estimated in the May 2013 version of this
paper. The earlier estimate (of about $20 to $25 a month for a family
of 3) was based on the Congressional Budget Office food inflation
forecast of 2.5 percent. Food inflation turned out to be lower over the
last year, at 0.7 percent, which results in a larger cut.
[3]
SNAP benefits are based on the cost of the most economical U.S.
Agriculture Department (USDA) food plan (known as the Thrifty Food Plan)
for a four-person family with a couple aged 19-50 years and two
children aged 6-8 and 9-11 years. The cost of the June plan is used for
maximum benefits during the following fiscal year. Maximum benefits
for other household sizes are adjusted for economies of scale.
[4] USDA posts the Thrifty Food Plan costs each month at:
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm.
[5] The TFP
declined
slightly in June 2009 in and June 2010 compared to the prior year (-0.8
percent in June 2009 and -0.1 percent in June 2010) before growing by
5.0 percent and 2.6 percent in the following two years and by 0.7
percent in the most recent year.
[6]
On August 1, 2013, USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service published the SNAP
maximum benefit levels for each household size to go into effect in
November. Cost of living adjustments for certain other SNAP benefit
rules will go into effect at the beginning of fiscal year 2014 in
October. The USDA memo can be found here:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/government/cola.htm
[7] A small number of households with three or more members that receive small SNAP benefits will lose benefits altogether.
[8]
IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council), 2013,
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Examining the Evidence to
Define Benefit Adequacy, The National Academy Press,
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Supplemental-Nutrition-Assistance-Program-Examining-the-Evidence-to-Define-Benefit-Adequacy.aspx.
[9]
The 1996 welfare reform law lowered the maximum benefit from 103
percent to 100 percent of the TFP and froze the level of the standard
and shelter deductions, which could have resulted in a nationwide
across-the-board benefits cut. Because food inflation was almost 4
percent that year, the level of maximum benefits still rose slightly and
SNAP recipients did not see a cut in their nominal benefits. Benefits
could have fallen in fiscal year 1993 because of a drop in food prices,
but Congress intervened to hold benefits level at fiscal year 1992
levels.
[10]
Annual cost of living adjustments to other SNAP program rules, such as
income thresholds, standard deduction, and cap on the excess shelter
deduction will occur on October 1, 2014. These will be small because
the inflation indices to which these levels are tied were also
relatively low over the past year. As a result, many households will
see a small benefit increase in October (of $1 to $5), prior to the
deeper cut in November.
[11] Mark Nord and Mark Prell. “Food Security of SNAP Recipients Improved Following the 2009 Stimulus Package,”
Amber Waves, 9(2), June 2011, p.6,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/227714/foodsecuritysnap_1_.pdf.
[12]
Evaluation of the Impact of Enhancement Demonstrations on Participation
in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP): FY 2011; FNS, USDA,
November 2012,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/CNP/FILES/SEBTC_Year1Findings.pdf.
[13] 7 C.F.R. 273.12(e).
[14] 7 C.F.R. 273.12(e)(ii).
[15]
7 C.F.R. § 273.12(e)(5). Households contesting an improper computation
of the benefit reduction can continue to receive benefits at the former
level. See 7 C.F.R. § 273.12(e)(6).
By Michael Snyder, on August 26th, 2013
As
26 House Democrats take the Food Stamp Challenge, prominent millionaire
Republican congressmen are poised to pass a bill that would cut $20
billion from the food stamp program.
Seven
Maine officials have resigned from the Republican Party after writing a
scathing letter where they condemned John Boehner for cowardly
leadership.