No More Food Stamp Program - Now it's SNAP!

August 1, 2008

Author: Barbara Weiner

The Food Stamp Program has a new name – the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP). The program was re-christened through a provision in Title IV of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 , P.L. 110-246 (the "2008 Farm Bill"), which reauthorizes the food stamp program another five years.

The new name acknowledges that a central aspect of the program as initially established decades ago, namely the provision of assistance through participant purchase of stamps, had long ago been abandoned.  After stamps came coupons and after coupons came the current electronic benefit system.  So a name change was certainly in order.  However, there is no indication that USDA will push for immediate implementation of the name change by the states. Among those of us who have worked with the program for years, the term "food stamps" is likely to linger for some time even after federal and state statutory references to the program are amended to reflect the new name.

The "re-branding" of the program is the least significant accomplishment of the 2008 Farm Bill.  In spite of a very tight federal budget and over the President's veto, Congress' improvements in the food stamp program will pump an additional $7.8 billion into the program over the next years. All changes, including increases in benefit levels, are effective October 1, 2008.

Catching Up With Inflation

As with many assistance programs for poor people, the value of the food stamp program's benefits has eroded steadily over the years because its budgeting methodology did not fully take inflation into account.  The reauthorized food stamp program will begin to do that. Specifically, Title IV of the 2008 Act: 

• raises the standard deduction for one to three person households from $134 to $144 with annual inflation adjustments (larger households already receive an annually indexed standard deduction) – Section 4102;

• raises the minimum benefit1 that one and two person households receive from $10 to 8% of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) benefit for a household of one, which will automatically result in the indexing of the minimum benefit since the TFP is indexed to food cost inflation (this will likely mean that minimum benefit households, mostly elderly or disabled people, will see an increase to from $10 to $14 a month on October 1, 2008) – Section 4107; 

• uncaps the child and dependent care deduction (stuck at ridiculously low levels for years) so that the actual cost of child care or the care of a disabled household member can be accounted for in calculating the food stamp grant – Section 4103; and 

• indexes the asset limit, currently at $3000 for families with an elderly or disabled member and $2000 for all others and excludes all retirement accounts and tax-preferred education accounts from counting at all – Section 4104(a).2

Simplifying Procedures

Congress, continuing the process it began with the 2002 Farm Bill, has given states several options to simplify and, indeed, expand program benefits.  The states can now extend the benefit of "simplified reporting", to households without earnings composed only of elderly and/or disabled members.  This means that, instead of having to report every change in the household's circumstances to the local district within ten days, elderly or disabled households, like all others, will only have to report changes that would bring their income above 130% of poverty.  Unlike households with earnings, whose simplified reporting period is limited to six months, households with only elderly or disabled members will not have to report changes for a full 12 months.

Also making life simpler is the option provided to the states to extend the benefit of transitional food stamps to families with children who leave state cash assistance programs. Currently, the transitional benefit program automatically provides five additional months of food stamp benefits only to a household leaving the federally funded cash assistance program (in New York, called Family Assistance).  States had been lobbying for some time to extend this benefit to families with children who were leaving the state funded welfare programs (in New York, the Safety Net program).  With the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress has done just that.

Codifying LEP Access Provisions and Confirming the Private Right of Action

Food stamp program regulations are among the most detailed with respect to defining the food stamp agency's responsibility to provide access to program benefits on an equal basis to people with "limited English proficiency" (LEP).  Nevertheless, in at least one recent court case in which plaintiffs sought to enforce those requirements, the court held that the regulations are not enforceable and that the vague language of the statute with respect to LEP applicants and recipients is not sufficient to provide a private right of action.  Almendares v. Palmer, No. 3:00-CV-7524, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23258 (N.Dist. Ohio Dec.3, 2002).

Specifically rejecting the reasoning of the Ohio Court, Congress added Section 4114 to the 2008 Farm Bill, which amends Section 11(e)(1) of the Food Stamp Act (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(1)).  That section now requires the states to "comply with regulations of the Secretary requiring the use of appropriate bilingual personnel and printed material in the administration of the program in those portions of political subdivisions in the State in which a substantial number members of low-income households speak a language other than English..." (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(1)(B), 2008 amendment underlined and italicized.)

So that courts make no mistake in the future with regard to Congressional intent, Senator Harkin explained in his floor statement on the Conference Report that "Congress has always operated on the assumption, and with the intent, that the program's regulations would be fully enforceable and fully complied with to the same extent as the statute…" and that the "…regulations, no less than the statute, create rights for households to ensure that they can receive benefits."3

State Responsibility

In response to another court decision, this time in our own backyard, Congress undid the harm of the Reynolds v. Giuliani decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals4 by amending Section 11 of the Food Stamp Act5 to add a provision clarifying that "...[t]he responsibility of the agency of the State government [to certify applicant households] shall not be affected by whether the program is operated on a State-administered or county-administered basis...." (Section 4116 of the 2008 Farm Bill.)

Explaining Congress' reasoning for adding this language, Senator Harkin said in his floor statement in support of the bill: 

Responding to the New York case, the legislation clarified that States' responsibility is no less in locally administered system.  Congress has granted states the option for local administration as a convenience; nothing in the law reduces States' responsibility if they take this option.  If the State could not be held fully accountable for strict compliance with the act and regulations in these cases, local administration would not be permitted.  (Senator Harkin, Floor Statement.)

The 2008 Farm Bill also strengthens the privacy provisions "....to ensure that those receiving confidential information for legitimate reasons are not free to make other uses of that information or transmit it to third parties.... Confidential records...continue to be unavailable to the general public and others not having a legitimate reason relating to program administration."  Id., emphasis added.  Congress accomplished this in Section 4120 of the 2008 Farm Bill, by amending 7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(8), to replace the word "limit" in relation to the use or disclosure of information obtained from applicant households with a prohibition against such disclosure, other than in connection with the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the nutritional program itself or other federal assistance programs.

"Fleeing Felons" Revisited

Section 6(k) of the Food Stamp Act provides that an individual "...fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction...for a crime, or attempt to commit a crime, that is a felony..." is ineligible to participate in the food stamp program.  7 U.S.C. § 2015(k)(1).  To clarify just who is meant to be excluded from the program by virtue of this provision,  the 2008 Farm Bill adds a provision directing the Secretary of USDA to issue regulations defining "fleeing" and "actively seeking" so that individuals are only disqualified "...whom law enforcement authorities are actively seeking for the purpose of holding criminal proceedings against the individual."  Section 4112 of the 2008 Farm Bill.

In his floor statement on the Conference Report, Senator Harkin explained that the amendment sought to correct state practices that disqualified applicants even though they were not "...being actively pursued by law enforcement authorities."  New York, which has since modified its procedures, was one of those states.  (See "News Briefs", this issue, page 30.)  The Senator noted that if "...the [warrant] issuing authority does not care to apprehend the applicant when notified of his or her whereabouts, there is no public purpose served by denying food assistance benefits...."  (Senator Harkin, Floor Statement.)

In addition to the foregoing provisions, the 2008 Farm Bill also: allows the use of Food Stamp Employment and Training funds for job retention for up to 90 days (Section 4108); requires states implementing major changes in program operations to monitor the impact of these changes on program access, particularly on vulnerable households (Sections 4116 and 4121); gives USDA the authority to prohibit a state from collecting "overpayments" from food stamp households if a major systems failure was the cause of the overpayments, although still requiring the state to reimburse the federal government (Section 4133), and gives states the option to allow applicants to apply for assistance by telephone (Section 4119).

Footnotes

1. The minimum benefit is what is provided to households whose adjusted income is at or below the federal poverty level but who would not otherwise be eligible for an actual grant, usually because they have few deductions available.  In light of the recent amendments to the HEAP Plan, far fewer households will be stuck with the minimum benefit in any case. 

2. Since New York has adopted the "categorical eligibility option" this change in the asset rules, though long overdue, won't have much of an impact. Under New York's procedures, all resources are exempt for families with gross income at or below 130% of the FPL, 200% of the FPL if the household contains an elderly or disabled member.

3. 154 Cong. Rec. S4752 (daily ed. May 22, 2008), available at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?positiona=all&page=S4752&dbname=2008_record (hereafter referred to as "Senator Harkin, Floor Statement).

4. 506 F.3d 183 (October, 2007).  The Second Circuit's decision rejected the lower court's determination that the State had a non-delegable duty to ensure that the federal requirements regarding the administration of the Food Stamp and Medicaid programs were being complied with by New York City's Human Resource Administration.

5. The Food Stamp Act has also been renamed and is now the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.