Community Chat

[Mz iMac]

Today's local tv news had a report on the FS cuts which apparently is going to take place next month.  At least in the states in my area.

I did a Google search & found the following article:

More Than 500,000 Adults Will Lose SNAP Benefits in 2016 as Waivers Expire

Affected Unemployed Childless Individuals Are Very Poor; Few Qualify for Other Help

UPDATED

March 18, 2016

by

Ed Bolen

Dottie Rosenbaum

Stacy Dean

Brynne Keith-Jennings

More than 500,000 and as many as 1 million of the nation’s poorest people will be cut off SNAP (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) over the course of 2016, due to the return in many areas of a three-month limit on SNAP benefits for unemployed adults aged 18-49 who aren’t disabled or raising minor children.  These individuals will lose their food assistance benefits after three months regardless of how hard they are looking for work.  The impact will be felt in the 22 states that must or are choosing to reimpose the time limit in 2016.

More than 500,000 and as many as 1 million of the nation’s poorest people will be cut off SNAP over ...One of the harshest pieces of the 1996 welfare law, this provision limits such individuals to three months of SNAP benefits in any 36-month period when they aren’t employed or in a work or training program for at least 20 hours a week.  Even SNAP recipients whose state operates few or no employment programs and fails to offer them a spot in a work or training program — which is the case in most states — have their benefits cut off after three months irrespective of whether they are searching diligently for a job.  Because this provision denies basic food assistance to people who want to work and will accept any job or work program slot offered, it is effectively a severe time limit rather than a work requirement, as such requirements are commonly understood.  Work requirements in public assistance programs typically require people to look or work and accept any job or employment program slot that is offered but do not cut off people who are willing to work and looking for a job simply because they can’t find one.  In fact, SNAP has separate work requirement authority much like this, where states can require individuals to participate in job search or a training program but cannot terminate them if no program is available.

In the past few years, the three-month limit hasn’t been in effect in most states.  The 1996 welfare law allows states to suspend the three-month limit in areas with high and sustained unemployment; many states qualified to waive the time limit throughout the state due to high unemployment rates during and since the Great Recession.  But as unemployment rates fall, fewer areas are qualifying for statewide waivers.  Most states have counties and other localities that are eligible for waivers because they continue to have especially high unemployment.  

In 2016, the time limit will be in effect in more than 40 states.  In 22 states, it will be the first time the time limit has been in effect since before the recession.  (See Figure 1.)  Of these states, 19 must reimpose the time limit in at least part of the state; another three are electing to reimpose the time limit despite qualifying for a statewide waiver from the time limit because of continued high unemployment.[1]

Figure 1

As a result, at least 500,000 and as many as 1 million SNAP recipients will have their benefits cut off in 2016.  A few southeastern states that are electing to re-implement the time limit statewide even though some or all of the state qualifies for a waiver, such as Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and North Carolina will be particularly hard hit.  In most of these states the time limit took effect in January 2016 and the first people will be cut off three months later, in April.  (We developed the estimate based on historical SNAP administrative data and Agriculture Department [USDA] data on states’ approved 2016 waivers.[2]) 

The loss of this food assistance, which averages approximately $150 to $170 per person per month for this group, will cause serious hardship among many.  USDA data show that the individuals likely to be cut off by the three-month limit have average monthly income of approximately 17 percent of the poverty line, and they typically qualify for no other income support.

The indigent individuals at risk are diverse.[3]  More than 40 percent are women.  Close to one-third are over age 40.  Among those who report their race, about half are white, a third are African American, and a tenth are Hispanic.  Half have only a high school diploma or GED, and one-quarter have not completed high school.  They live in all areas of the country, and among those for whom data on metropolitan status are available, close to 40 percent live in urban areas, 40 percent in suburban areas, and over 20 percent in rural areas.[4]  

Many in this population, which generally has limited education and skills and limited job prospects, struggle to find employment even in normal economic times.  And although the overall unemployment rate is slowly falling, other labor market data indicate that many people who want to work still cannot find jobs, while others who want to work full-time can find only part-time employment.  Cutting off food assistance to poor unemployed and underemployed workers doesn’t enable them to find employment or secure more hours of work.

Congress could revise this harsh rule to better accomplish its stated goal of testing individuals’ willingness to work.  For example, Congress could make the three-month limit in a given state contingent on the state offering a job or training position to all nondisabled childless adults subject to the limit who don’t otherwise find employment.  Congress could also allow diligent job search to count toward the requirement, as it generally does under work requirements for other programs.

But such congressional action seems unlikely.  Consequently, states and local charities that work with this population need to prepare for the return of the three-month cut-off provision on a large scale.  States need to be prepared to reinstate this complex rule properly and to engage stakeholders and prepare them for the consequences as substantial numbers of indigent individuals in their communities lose food assistance.

FULL ARTICLE LINK

[HappyDaze]

welfare benefits, including food stamps, were never meant to be long-term support. A person who is not disabled and has no family members to support should be able to find a job and support themselves but I know many people that won't accept jobs they think are below them. I am NOT saying all are this way but I do personally know of several. I am sorry but no job should be beneath you if you don't have a job and are relying on others to support you. I have had to work krap jobs I didn't like to make ends meet. You do what you have to do to survive and support yourself. My twenty something year old nephew is on food stamps and there is no reason he can't work more than he does but he doesn't because he thinks why should he if he gets the equivalent in food stamps without having to. To me, it is a source of pride to take care of yourself but I think pride in being able to support yourself and being self-sufficienct is lost on many people these days.

Sorry if this seems harsh but I've been there so I know how hard it is but I also know how there are always ways to get off the support, even if that means working two or three jobs or taking classes/training  so you can get paid more in your current job.

[occasionalrain]

I believe most communities have food banks and churches provide free meals to anyone.

[Pook]

Those with kids who are not working need the same guidelines  Other mothers and fathers go to work regularly in order to nprovide foe their families and just because one has kids should not exempt them from working either!!  Those are the ones with the most incentive to work steady - to provide for the children they have brought into the world!!

[chrystaltree]

The number of churches that provide free meals on a daily basis are practically non existent.  Very few churches can afford to do and very few do.  Yes, there are food pantries but they aren't grocery stores.  They don't exist to provide a week's worth of groceries on permanent basis.  They do what they can but they can't feed all of the people will suffer from this move.  It's very sad that a country that never seems to run out of money to send to any and every country in the world can't feed it's own people.  Let me change that.  Won't feed it's own people.

[Noel7]

25% of American military families use food stamps.  That's from a 2014 report, I have read it's gone up since then.

[Mz iMac]

@chrystaltree

---

Chrystaltree wrote: 

It's very sad that a country that never seems to run out of money to send to any and every country in the world can't feed it's own people.  Let me change that.  Won't feed it's own people.

---

[Mrsq2022]

This makes sense to me.  As @HappyDaze says, food stamps aren't intended as a long term solution for anyone.  I personally suort families with children continuing to receive them so that the children will be fed.  Also, child care is very expensive. More than a low-wage earner might earn.  $1500 per child for full-time child care could mean that a single mom with two children would need to pay $36,000 a year in childcare expense in order to hold down a full-time job.  I'm not saying that the system isn't abused by parents, but it is a tougher situation to get yourself out of when kids are involved.  

[Noel7]

http://www.marketplace.org/2015/05/25/wealth-poverty/military-families-turn-food-stamps

Military families turn to food stamps

The numbers are hard to come by. Neither the military nor the USDA tally those numbers, but recently the USDA estimated that between 2,000 and 22,000 active-duty military members used food stamps in 2012, the latest data available.

Also...

The USDA estimates that in 2012, more than 1.5 million veterans used food stamps, or about 7 percent of all veterans. 

[willdob3]

This is horrible. Seriously.