The Research Packet For THE SNAP TASK FORCE. Meeting of June, 2017

Transcription

1 The Research Packet For THE SNAP TASK FORCE Meeting of June, Prepared by the staff of Benefits Access, Food Bank For New York City 39 Broadway, 10th Fl. New York NY Tel: Fax:

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1. USDA FY 2018 Budget Summary.. 2. Comment Request Evaluation of Alternatives to Improve Elderly Access.. 3. Comment Request Assessment of States Use of Computer Matching Protocols in SNAP New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA).. 1. General Information System 17 TA/DC024: Revised EBT Forms: LDSS-5066 and LDSS Informational Letter 17-INF-09: Summer Food Service Program New York State SNAP Participation and Benefit Value in March New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA).. 1. Policy Bulletins and Directives.. Policy Bulletin #17-50-OPE: Forms Revised to Reflect the Rebranding of the HRA Online Portal Policy Bulletin #17-55-OPE: SNAP On Demand Telephone Recertification (BRC- 901e); Obsoletion of the BRC-901D.. Policy Directive #17-10-OPE: Revisions to the Mail Application Referral Unit (MARU).. Policy Bulletin #17-49-ELI: Revisions to Forms for Requesting a Clearance from the Office of Refugee and Immigrant Affairs (ORIA). Policy Bulletin #17-51-EMP: Revisions to the NYC Workforce 1 Career Centers Flyer (W-300A).. Policy Bulletin #17-53-EMP: Introduction of the Good Cause Notice Reports and Notable Items from Other Sources. 1. Reports From Food Research and Action Center.. Food Research and Action Center s Review of President s Proposed FY 2018 Budget.. 2. Administration s 2018 Budget Would Severely Weaken and Cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities Hunger and Poverty in the Media Local News Poverty Stats Show Roughly 30% of NYC Children Are Poor, Furman Center Says, AM NY City Farmers Markets Will Be Devastated by Trump s Cruel Proposal to Cut Food Stamps, Patch 2. National News The Problem isn t Food Stamps, It s Poverty, New York Times 12 Trump s Cuts to SNAP and Social Security Would Hit the Rust Belt Hard, The Altantic International News. 13 US Opts Out of G7 Pledge Stating Paris Climate Accord is Irreversible The Guardian 13 US Cities and States Want to Implement the Paris Climate Accord Goals. It s Not That Simple, The Washington Post.. 13 APPENDICES Appendix A: SNAP Income Guidelines (W-138Q)... Appendix B: SNAP On Demand Telephone Recertification (BRC-901e) [Brochure]... Appendix C: NYC Workforce1 Career Centers (W-300A).. Appendix D: Good Cause Notice (FIA-1187) Page 2

3 I. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FY 2018 BUDGET SUMMARY < pdf> The Fiscal Year 2018 USDA budget requests $104.5 billion for nutrition assistance programs like SNAP, child nutrition programs, and WIC. The budget also proposes $23 million to continue Summer EBT pilots, as well as $238 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. Nutrition assistance funding is based on projected participation levels in FY 2018 as follows: SNAP: 42.2 million monthly School Lunch: 30.6 million children daily School Breakfast: 15.7 million daily WIC: 7.2 million monthly Under the FY 2018 proposal, SNAP funding would be reduced by $193 billion over 10 years. This would be accomplished in a number of ways: First, the budget proposes several reforms to SNAP eligibility and benefit calculations that will target benefits to the neediest households and encourage work among able-bodied adults as follows: 1) Standardizing the Standard Utility Allowance (SUA) methodology for all States and eliminate the connection between LIHEAP and the heating/cooling SUA ($20.5 billion over 10 years) 2) Limiting waivers for ABAWDs to counties with annual unemployment exceeding 10 percent; and, restricting Categorical Eligibility to households receiving cash assistance from TANF ($49.7 billion over 10 years) 3) Eliminating the minimum SNAP benefit ($2.7 billion over 10 years) 4) Capping SNAP benefits at the maximum allotment for a six-person household ($1.8 billion over 10 years) In addition, the budget proposes a state match for SNAP benefits that would be phased in at an average of 10 percent in 2020 to an average of 25 percent in This move is expected to save $116 billion over 10 years. Finally, the budget proposes an application fee for retailers applying or reauthorizing their stores to accept SNAP benefits, expected to generate an additional $2.4 billion. Page 3

4 2. COMMENT REQUEST EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE ELDERLY ACCESS, MAY 30, < FNS is seeking comment on a new study designed to provide the agency with a better understanding of how to serve elderly populations in the SNAP program. The study seeks to gain perspectives from select state agencies, as well as elder participants about their awareness of SNAP, perceptions of the program, and experiences applying for and receiving SNAP benefits. The information collection will also explore the extent to which policy interventions expand SNAP access for the elderly, such as: The Elderly Simplified Application Project demonstration that waives the recertification interview, reduces required verification, and extends certification to 36 months Standard Medical Deduction Community partner interviews Combined Application Project allows live-alone SSI households to file a shortened SNAP application Written comments on the study are due to FNS on or before July 31,. Page 4

5 3. COMMENT REQUEST ASSESSMENT OF STATES USE OF COMPUTER MATCHING PROTOCOLS IN SNAP, MAY 30, < FNS also seeks comment on a separate study designed to assess the use of computer matching by state agencies in the SNAP program. Specifically, the study will conduct a census of all 53 state agencies that administer SNAP to catalog and describe how States are currently using or planning to use computer matching strategies to reduce recipient fraud, payment errors, and administrative burden for both applicants and eligibility workers. The information will be used to inform effective data matching protocols and assess the challenges faced by state and local agencies in collecting this data. Written comments on the study are due to FNS on or before July 31,. II. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE 1. GENERAL INFORMATION SYSTEM 17 TA/DC024: REVISED EBT FORMS: LDSS AND LDSS-5004, MAY 19, < Several EBT user guides have been updated to reflect a change for the EBT customer website at < These include: LDSS-5066 Electronic Benefits Transfer Cardholder On-line Account User Guide LDSS-5004 EBT How to Use Your Benefit Card to get SNAP and/or Cash Benefits Electronic copies of both of these forms are available for download on OTDA s website at < 2. INFORMATIONAL LETTER 17-INF-09: SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM, MAY 25, < Advertising for the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) began on June 12,. SFSP provides nutritious meals and activities during the summer months at participating sites, including schools, parks, pools, rec centers, camps, housing authorities, and other locations. Page 5

6 FEBRUARY MARCH PERCENT CHANGE FEBRUARY MARCH PERCENT CHANGE FEBRUARY MARCH PERCENT CHANGE FEBRUARY MARCH PERCENT CHANGE FEBRUARY MARCH PERCENT CHANGE FOOD BANK FOR NEW YORK CITY All children ages 18 or younger, as well as young adults age 18+ enrolled in school programs for disabled persons, may receive meals at a summer meals site without an eligibility determination. Information about the program and program sites is available at summermealsny.org, by calling 311, or by texting food or comida to OTDA will also add information about the SFSP to the New York EBT Cardholder website, the mybenefits Prescreening Tool, and all Client Notice Systems notices for SNAP openings, recertifications, and re-opening transactions. 3. NEW YORK STATE SNAP PARTICIPATION AND BENEFIT VALUE IN MARCH < According to the latest data from OTDA, SNAP participation and benefit value in New York State showed a very slight increase from February to March. This increase was most notable in NYC, where benefits increased by nearly a percentage point. Overall, 1,682,786 individuals participated in SNAP citywide in March, receiving $246,369,501 in benefits. PERSONS HOUSEHOLDS BENEFITS New York State New York City Rest of State 2,922,438 2,927, % 1,614,016 1,619, % $400,209,071 $402,632, % 1,678,623 1,682, % 946, , % $244,560,042 $246,369, % 1,243,813 1,244, % 667, , % $155,649,029 $156,263, % AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE AVERAGE BENEFITS PER HOUSEHOLD New York State % $ $ % New York City % $ $ % Rest of State % $ $ % Page 6

7 III. NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION 1. POLICY BULLETINS AND DIRECTIVES POLICY BULLETIN #17-50-OPE: FORMS REVISED TO REFLECT THE REBRANDING OF THE HRA ONLINE PORTAL, MAY 30, HRA has revised several forms to reflect ACCESS HRA as the new name of the online portal to apply or recertify for SNAP or Cash Assistance benefits. ACCESS HRA is accessible at < The ACCESS NYC website is now a separate page that provides information and a pre-screening tool for city benefits and services. The SNAP Income Guidelines sheet (Appendix A) reminds recipients that they may file an application at ACCESS HRA. POLICY BULLETIN #17-55-OPE: SNAP ON DEMAND TELEPHONE RECERTIFICATION (BRC-901E); OBSOLETION OF THE BRC-901D, MAY 31, HRA has created a new brochure (Appendix B) to provide general information about On Demand interviews and the SNAP recertification process. As HRA has eliminated scheduled telephone recertification interviews, a previous version of the form (BRC-901D) is now obsolete. POLICY DIRECTIVE #17-10-OPE: REVISIONS TO THE MAIL APPLICATION REFERRAL UNIT (MARU), MAY 19, This directive notes several updates to the Mail Application and Referral Unit as follows: Signatures for the SNAP application/recertification form (LDSS-4826) will be entered on Page 2 and Page 8 The MARU mailing address has been revised to read: o HRA/Family Independence Administration Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Mail Application and Referral Unit (MARU) P.O. Box Brooklyn, NY HRA s online portal should be listed as ACCESS HRA, and can be reached at < POLICY BULLETIN #17-49-ELI: REVISIONS TO FORMS FOR REQUESTING A CLEARANCE FROM THE OFFICE OF REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT AFFAIRS (ORIA), MAY 15, This bulletin instructs HRA staff to refer a SNAP applicant or participant with lost or expired immigration documents, or any other immigration issue to the ActionNYC hotline at (800) The Office of Refugee and Immigrant Affairs can provide assistance to HRA in determining benefit eligibility for non-citizens prior to denying a case due to immigration status. Page 7

8 POLICY BULLETIN #17-51-EMP: REVISIONS TO THE NYC WORKFORCE 1 CAREER CENTERS FLYER (W-300A), MAY 26, The recently updated NYC Workforce1 Career Centers Flyer (Appendix C) is available to SNAP participants who are seeking employment. The document lists the Career Centers in the five boroughs, along with their business hours and contact information. POLICY BULLETIN #17-53-EMP: INTRODUCTION OF THE GOOD CAUSE NOTICE (FIA-1187), MAY 30, The Good Cause Notice (Appendix D) is provided to HRA program participants who demonstrated good cause for failure to meet an HRA requirement. For example, the notice would be issued if the participant had good cause for missing a mandatory appointment, such as not receiving a reasonable accommodation. Participants are advised to keep this notice for their records. IV. Reports and Notable Items from Other Sources 1. REPORTS FROM FOOD RESEARCH AND ACTION CENTER (FRAC): FOOD RESEARCH AND ACTION CENTER S REVIEW OF PRESIDENT S PROPOSED FY 2018 BUDGET, MAY 25, < Responding to President Trump s proposed FY 2018 budget, the Food Research and Action Center cites the $193 billion in cuts to SNAP over 10 years as a callous failure to recognize the critical role SNAP plays as a first line of defense against hunger. The organization will work with its partners at the national, state, and local levels to urge Congress to not only reject these cuts, but to return to its historic bipartisan commitment to protect nutrition assistance programs and reject any budget proposal that abdicates the federal responsibility to combat hunger and deprives struggling and hungry Americans access to nutrition food. FRAC also points to other notable cuts included in the FY 2018 budget, such as $627 billion to Medicaid (not including an additional $880 billion through the GOP s plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act), a $40 billion reduction in the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, and $21 billion in cuts to TANF. Page 8

9 2. ADMINISTRATION S 2018 BUDGET WOULD SEVERELY WEAKEN AND CUT THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, CENTER FOR BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES, MAY 31, < In its analysis of the $193 billion in SNAP cuts proposed under President Trump s FY 2018 budget, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities argues that the cuts would radically restructure the program, undermining its impact and effectiveness, exacerbating income inequality, and damaging the country s response to the problem of hunger and poverty. This report takes an in-depth look at each of the SNAP proposals and their impact on recipients and states administering SNAP. 25 percent match requirement on states SNAP has always been financed completely by the federal government as a means to address disparities across states in hunger, poverty, and state resources. However, under the proposal, states would need to pay a 25 percent share (on average) towards SNAP benefits beginning in The authors argue that the majority of states cannot afford to assume these costs without raising taxes or cutting spending. As a result, States would likely need to cut benefits. In a scenario where each state could only contribute 80 percent of their required share, SNAP benefits would fall by more than $25 per person. Page 9

10 Table 2 (abridged) Restricting Categorical Eligibility More than 40 states currently implement Categorical Eligibility. This option expands eligibility for working families, seniors, and disabled individuals, while reducing administrative burdens on states. However, the proposal would limit Categorical Eligibility to households receiving cash assistance under TANF. As a result, many households would see a benefit cliff resulting from a small increase in earnings. The proposal would also re-impose the asset limit, penalizing low-income families who build up as little as $2,250 in savings. Limit Waivers for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) About one-third of counties nationwide have implemented ABAWD waivers, allowing unemployed, childless adults to receive SNAP for more than three months in a 36-month period. The proposed rule seeks to limit these waivers to areas whose unemployment rate exceeds 10 percent. The authors argue that 10 percent unemployment is extremely high, noting that 10 percent was the peak unemployment rate during a single month of the Great Recession. Only 54 out of 3,142 counties have sustained unemployment rates this high, representing 1.3 percent of the population. Close to 1 million individuals could lose their benefits under this provision. Eliminate the minimum SNAP benefit Categorically-eligible one- or two-person households are automatically eligible for the minimum SNAP benefit, which currently stands at $16. The President s proposal would eliminate the benefit floor, meaning many households could see their benefits reduced to negligible levels or lose their benefits altogether. The majority of households affected would include people with disabilities and seniors, who live in 80 percent of SNAP households receiving the minimum SNAP benefit. Overall, 1.3 million households would lose their SNAP benefits, and another 280,000 would see a reduction in their monthly allotment. Page 10

11 Cap SNAP benefits to the maximum amount for a six-person household Another $180 billion would be saved over 10 years by capping SNAP benefits for households exceeding six people. The authors argue that this proposal effectively eliminates benefits for additional household members, while reducing benefits for the 470,000 participants residing in large households. They note that these families mainly include children, and many are extremely poor, with income averaging 25 percent of the federal poverty level. Eliminate the connection between LIHEAP and SNAP USDA has proposed to amend SNAP law to sever the relationship between LIHEAP and SNAP, which allows states to use receipt of LIHEAP as a proxy to qualify for the heating/cooling Standard Utility Allowance. This process simplifies the verification of utility expenses, with the understanding that households that qualify for low-income energy assistance struggle to pay for their utilities. If the relationship were to end, an estimated 1 to 2 million households could lose eligibility for the heating/cooling SUA, resulting in a loss of about $100 a month in SNAP benefits. The proposal would also create a national methodology for calculating the Standard Utility Allowance level, reducing state flexibility in adjusting the methodology based on local utility costs. V. Hunger and Poverty in the Media 1. LOCAL NEWS POVERTY STATS SHOW ROUGHLY 30% OF NYC CHILDREN ARE POOR, FURMAN CENTER SAYS, AM NY, JUNE 7, < 535,700 children live in poverty in New York City, according to a report released by the NYU Furman Center. The report attributes this trend to the long-term consequences of living in communities with poverty rates exceeding 40 percent. The problem was most acute in the Bronx, where more than 52 percent of neighborhoods experience extreme poverty conditions. As a result, many families are struggling to give their children access better living conditions and resources. In addition, the report showed a strong negative correlation between school quality and poverty, arguing that poor education is a barrier to upward mobility for the next generation. Page 11

12 CITY FARMERS MARKETS WILL BE DEVASTATED BY TRUMP'S 'CRUEL PROPOSAL' TO CUT FOOD STAMPS, CITY SAYS, PATCH, JUNE 12, < New York City s health commissioner has spoken out against President Trump s proposed cuts to the SNAP program. During a visit to a Union Square greenmarket, Commissioner Mary Bassett noted that SNAP reductions would put families at greater risk of hunger and adverse health conditions. Bassett also highlighted the impact the cuts would have on farmers markets citywide. New York City currently operates 51 Greenmarkets, enabling SNAP recipients to buy healthy, locally-grown food, More than $1 million in SNAP benefits were redeemed at farmer s markets in Marcel Van Ooyen, president of GrowNYC, said that the cuts would hurt farmers, forcing some to shut down their businesses for lack of support. 2. NATIONAL THE PROBLEM ISN T FOOD STAMPS, IT S POVERTY, MAY 26, < This article from the New York Times editorial board defends the SNAP program and points out that the problem isn t the number of people on the SNAP program. Rather, the problem is the poverty-level wages that result in many working households having to turn to the program in the first place. The authors argues that SNAP works effectively and prevents 43 million people, including working parents and families with children, from falling deeper into poverty. The President s proposal to cut SNAP by 25 percent, they claim, is predicated on a misconception that SNAP discourages work. They call upon Congress to not only reject the President s budget proposals, but also make specific objections and draw clear lines in the sand with regards to SNAP and the safety net. TRUMP'S CUTS TO SNAP AND SOCIAL SECURITY WOULD HIT THE RUST BELT HARD, THE ATLANTIC, MAY 23, < President Trump s cuts to programs like disability benefits and SNAP will affect many blue-collar, low-income voters in Rustbelt states instrumental to Trump s victory in the 2016 presidential election, according to an analysis conducted by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities for The Atlantic. The majority of SNAP beneficiaries in states like Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin include whites without a four-year college degree. Many of these voters also stand to lose their health coverage under the replacement health-care plan passed by the House in May. Page 12

13 3. INTERNATIONAL US OPTS OUT OF G7 PLEDGE STATING PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD IS 'IRREVERSIBLE', THE GUARDIAN, JUNE 12, < pledge-paris-climate-accord-irreversible> The United States will not sign on to a G7 pledge to reaffirm its commitment with six other countries to combat climate change. In a footnote to a final report on the Paris climate accord, the United States said it will take its own steps to reduce carbon emissions, and continue to engage with key international partners in a manner that is consistent with our domestic priorities, preserving both a strong economy and a healthy environment. President Trump said that he may reenter the Paris accord under new terms at a later date. However, although the G6 countries have pledged to continue constructive dialogue with the US, they insist that the accord and its parameters cannot be renegotiated. U.S. CITIES AND STATES WANT TO IMPLEMENT THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD GOALS. IT S NOT THAT SIMPLE, THE WASHINGTON POST, JUNE 13, < In response to President Trump s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, many U.S. cities and organizations have formed a sub-national coalition and have pledged to implement the accord on their own. However, this article cites numerous challenges in complying with the accord without support from the federal government. Historically, support from the President of the United States has helped push implementation of treaties and policies even when the Senate was opposed. Without President Trump s support, cities and climate groups face numerous challenges in meeting international goals. For instance, the Paris accord calls for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, while the President has called for removing restrictions on the coal industry. On the sub-national level, cities and states would need to work to ensure compliance, coordination, and successful coordination. This will be a significant challenge, especially considering that Trump s FY 2018 budget proposes cutting the Environmental Protection Agency s budget by one-third. Page 13

14 APPENDIX A Page 14

15 Page 15

16 APPENDIX B Page 16

17 Page 17

18 APPENDIX C Page 18

19 APPENDIX D Page 19

20 FOOD BANK FOR NEW YORK CITY Page 20