FOOD STAMPS IN
UPSTATE NEW YORK:
Views from the Front Lines
Report Prepared by:
Greater Upstate Law Project
Hunger Action Network of New York State
Nutrition Consortium of New York State
SENSES
October 2001
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Nancy Krupski
of the Greater Upstate Law Project to this report. She provided
tremendous help by creating a database for the survey responses,
entering data, and compiling the results. Andrea Strother, an
MSW intern with SENSES, diligently collected information from
the local Departments of Social Services and coded their open-ended
responses. Kristin Brown and Bill O’Connell helped with early
stages of the survey design and collection while working for the
Hunger Action Network. Thanks also to all who responded to our
survey.
Authors
Greater Upstate Law Project
Barbara Weiner, Staff Attorney
119 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12210
(518) 462-6831; bweiner@wnylc.com
Hunger Action Network of New York State (HANNYS)
Mark Dunlea, Organizer
94 Central Avenue, #2
Albany, NY 12206
(518) 434-7371; hannysalb@aol.com
Nutrition Consortium of New York State
Colleen Pawling, Food Stamp Specialist
235 Lark Street, Albany, New York 12210
(518) 436-8757 ext. 12; hungerfs@aol.com
Statewide Emergency Network for Social and Economic
Security (SENSES)
Christine McKenna, Associate Director
275 State Street, Albany, New York 12210
(518) 463-5576; info@sensesny.org
Table of Contents
Executive Summary …...…………………………………………………… 1
Introduction ………………………………………………………….……….. 2
Methodology ………………………………………………………………….. 7
Responses to survey questions …………………………………………….. 8
Step One: The decision to Apply
Step Two: Getting the application
Step Three: Submitting the application
Step Four: screening for emergency needs
Step Five: verifying eligibility
Step Six: the "face to face" interview
requirement
Step Seven: calculation of the monthly benefit
Step Eight: eligibility determination and the issuance
of benefits
Narrative Responses to Open-Ended Questions ………….………..……. 21
Recommendations ………………………………………………………….. 27
References …………………..…….………………………………………… 34
Appendix A: Methodology
Appendix B: Survey forms
Appendix C: Raw data from survey
Appendix D: Background on survey sponsors
Executive Summary
The Food Stamp Program is the nation’s primary
tool to combat hunger, providing benefits that are useable only
for the purchase of food. The Food Stamp Program is a federal program
under the administration of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA). All states must operate the program in conformity with federal
rules. The state agency in New York responsible for implementing
the program is the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance
(OTDA). In New York, the day-to-day administration of the Food Stamp
Program is the task of local social services districts.
While demand for emergency food assistance has
continued to grow in New York State, food stamp participation has
declined. From 1994 to 2000, food stamp participation in NYS declined
by 39 percent, from 2.18 million to 1.33 million. At the same time
there was an increase in the use of emergency food resources. Since
food stamps are a cost-effective approach to reducing hunger, it
makes little sense for food stamp participation to decline as hunger
is on the rise.
An audit of the Human Resources Administration‘s
management of the Food Stamp Program in New York City, conducted
by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), as well as
the 1999 Reynolds v Wing litigation, revealed serious problems
in access to the program in New York City. However, no information
was available about the performance of the program in the remainder
of the state.
To gain insight about the rest of the state, the
authors, a coalition of four statewide agencies, decided to survey
four different groups: local food stamp offices, legal services
program staff, food stamp outreach workers, and emergency food providers,
in order to discover why a program providing much needed nutritional
assistance was not reaching nearly all those eligible for its benefits.
Findings
The Decision to Apply
-
Stigma was cited as an issue by more local Department of Social
Services (LDSS) offices than any of the other barriers listed
in the survey. Nearly four-fifths (78 percent) of these workers
identified stigma as a problem. Stigma was among the top problems
for food stamp outreach workers as well, with 94 percent answering
that it keeps people from applying for needed benefits.
Getting and Filing the Application
-
Failure to accept applications on the same day they are submitted
was also cited as a significant problem. Almost one fifth of
client respondents (19 percent) reported that they personally
had, at one time or another, not been permitted to submit their
application on the day they first appeared at the local district
office to apply. About a third (31 percent) of clients report
that they have been told that there are only certain days or
hours that they can submit food stamp applications, contrary
to federal law. Several local districts reported engaging in
the unlawful practice of limiting hours during which applications
are accepted.
Verifying Eligibility
Eligibility Determination
-
The automatic termination of the food stamp case by LDSS when
the agency closes a household’s cash assistance case without
the caseworker making a separate determination as to the household’s
continuing eligibility for food stamps, was reported to be a
problem that kept eligible households from participating in
the food stamp program.
Introduction
The Food Stamp Program (FSP or the program) is
the nation’s primary tool for the alleviation of hunger. Benefits
provided by the program can be used to purchase food in a wide variety
of USDA approved establishments, including supermarkets, grocery
stores, bodegas, farmer’s markets, and food buying clubs such
as SHARE, Xtra Helpings, and FoodSense. Food Stamp benefits can
also be used as contributions to home delivered meal providers or
congregate meal sites.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United
State Department of Agriculture pays the full cost of food stamp
benefits and about half of the states’ administrative costs.
The FNS promulgates program regulations and oversees the program’s
implementation by the states. States administer the program, determining
household eligibility, calculating the monthly benefits for which
households are eligible and issuing the benefits themselves.
The state agency responsible for supervising the
operation of the Food Stamp Program in New York is the Office of
Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA). The day-to-day operation
of the program is the task of each county’s Department of Social
Services, also known as the local social services district. In New
York City, one agency, the Human Resources Administration (HRA),
administers the program in all five boroughs. In this report, which
only deals with the counties outside of New York City, the local
social services districts are alternatively referred to as the local
district, "local DSS" or "LDSS".
In the past, program benefits were distributed
as paper coupons, hence the name "food stamps". The coupons
have since been eliminated in many states, including New York, where
benefits are now issued through an Electronic Benefits Transfer
(EBT) system. Participants receive an ATM-like card that is swiped
at the cash register at the point of food purchase. Food purchases
are then debited from the recipient’s remaining balance in
his/her food stamp account.
In spite of the availability of the Food Stamp
Program, hunger continues to be a significant problem in New York
State. Each month, more than 1.5 million New Yorkers turn to more
than 3,000 food pantries and soup kitchens for assistance. A recent
survey by the Hunger Action Network found that the demand for emergency
food increased by 37 percent from 1995 to 1999.
Although the demand for emergency food assistance
continues to grow in New York State, food stamp participation has
greatly declined. Since the peak in program enrollment in 1995,
some one million fewer individuals are receiving assistance from
New York’s food stamp program, representing an almost 40 percent
decline. The fact that this drop in program participation has been
accompanied by the steadily increasing utilization of emergency
food services suggests that something other than a lessening of
need has been driving the reduction in New York’s food stamp
caseload.
To investigate the reasons for the decline, four
agencies, the Hunger Action Network of New York State, Greater Upstate
Law Project, Nutrition Consortium of New York State and the Statewide
Emergency Network for Social and Economic Security (SENSES), conducted
barriers surveys to ask the people most intimately involved with
the food stamp program about what they perceived as barriers to
full utilization of food stamp benefits. Thus the survey asked questions
of the LDSS’ employees responsible for running the program,
the low income families and individuals who were turning to emergency
food providers in increasing numbers, and the legal services advocates
and community outreach workers assisting households to get into,
and to remain participants in, the food stamp program.
One fact that had already been established by a
number of national studies is that the drop in Food Stamp Program
participation was significantly larger than the drop in the number
of potentially eligible households, that is, households poor enough
to qualify for benefits. Although the economy had improved in the
years between 1995 and 2000, USDA studies showed that only about
35 percent of the decline in program participation could be attributed
to better employment opportunities. Rather, over half of the decline
(56 percent) was due to the fact that fewer eligible individuals
were enrolled in the program.
The food stamp caseload decline more closely resembled
the decline in the welfare caseload, even though the financial eligibility
rules in the Food Stamp Program are generally more generous than
cash assistance rules. It became clear that many of the families
leaving cash assistance programs were also leaving the food stamp
program, although most of those households probably remained eligible
for benefits and could have remained program participants. The vast
majority of these households were entering low wage occupations.
These "welfare to work" households were losing the nutritional
assistance that could have helped ease that transition, compromising
their health and well-being.
Thus welfare reform appears to be having the unintended consequence
of diminishing the food stamp rolls without lessening the degree
of need or hunger. This is true not only for the families leaving
welfare but also for families who were applying for assistance.
Welfare reform gave birth to a number of practices in local districts
that were aimed at "diverting" families from cash assistance.
By providing one-time grants to meet a particular need or by other
short term measures, districts hoped to avoid the family’s
entrance into the welfare system. The evidence is increasingly clear
that in the process of welfare diversion, households are also being
diverted from the Food Stamp Program.
In New York City, HRA’s practice of diversion
led to court action in a case called Reynolds v Wing.
In response to this lawsuit and to a highly critical evaluation
of HRA’s food stamp application practices by the regional office
of USDA, New York State OTDA issued several administrative directives
reminding the local social services districts of the requirement
that applications for food stamps be evaluated according to Food
Stamp Program rules and that cash assistance application procedures
designed to meet the goal of reducing welfare caseloads were not
to be imposed on the food stamp application process.
Another reason for the decline in participation
was that the 1996 welfare reform greatly restricted the food stamp
eligibility of two groups: immigrants and unemployed, childless
adults. With respect to the former, generally only permanent residents
and immigrants in this country for humanitarian reasons remain eligible
for benefits. Children, disabled people, and those over 60 remained
eligible under a state-funded program. The immediate consequence
was a 60 percent drop in food stamp program participation by immigrants
and a 42 percent decline in program participation by the American
born children of immigrants, even though the latter continued to
be eligible for benefits. The 1996 welfare reform law also restricted
the eligibility of adults without children in the household to 3
months out of every 36-month period unless they were employed 80
hours per month or participating in an approved work activity.
Nevertheless, the effects of welfare reform policies
are not sufficient to explain why the Food Stamp Program is not
reaching 40 percent of the households eligible for its benefits.
The program has long been underutilized, with the number of participants
always less than the number eligible, though the gap has increased
significantly in the years since welfare reform. National statistics
show that from 1994 to 1998 the percentage of eligible households
actually receiving benefits dropped from 74 percent to 59 percent.
Surprisingly, the greatest decline was among the poorest families,
perhaps reflecting the fact that it was the families leaving welfare
who were most likely to be dropping out of the Food Stamp Program.
In New York State, program participation dropped from a high
of 74 percent in 1995 to 60 percent in 1998.
Previous studies have shown that certain groups,
particularly the elderly and the working poor, have traditionally
had a lower rate of participation than other eligible groups. Burdensome
and complex documentation requirements, low benefit levels, limited
office hours during which applications will be accepted by the LDSS’
and the stigma attached to program participation are often cited
as reasons for low program enrollment by these groups. The identification
of the Food Stamp Program as a welfare program, and the resulting
stigma ,stigma, is known to be a problem especially among the elderly.
In New York State, only about 40 percent of eligible elderly people
receive food stamp benefits.
People involved with and affected by the program
were surveyed to measure to what extent program changes, like welfare
reform, and long-standing problems associated with the Food Stamp
Program were considered barriers to participation. A fuller understanding
of the deterrents to participation seemed a reasonable first step
towards developing strategies for increasing the percentage of eligible
households receiving benefits, a goal shared by advocates, community
outreach workers, as well as LDSSs, New York State and USDA. This
understanding is particularly important in light of the imminent
re-authorization of the Food Stamp Program, a time when statutory
modification of the program to eliminate some of the barriers may
well be possible.
Methodology
In the summer of 1999, troubled by the sharp decline
in program participation, the Greater Upstate Law Project (GULP)
and the Nutrition Consortium of New York State (the Consortium)
discussed undertaking a joint survey of New York’s legal services
program staff and food stamp outreach workers about what they perceived
to be barriers to fuller participation in the Food Stamp Program.
Around the same time, the Statewide Emergency Network for Social
and Economic Security (SENSES) was preparing to conduct a survey
of local social services districts, to ask about their food stamp
program practices and for their opinions as to what was turning
so many eligible families away from the program. The Hunger Action
Network of NYS was interested in surveying consumers of the emergency
food system about their experience with the Food Stamp Program.
In light of the differences between the groups
targeted by the survey, somewhat different survey instruments were
developed for each population. A complete explanation of the methodology
is attached as Appendix A. The survey instruments used are in Appendix
B. All survey responses were collected between January and June
of 2000.
None of the surveys was designed to be scientific.
The goal was to obtain insights into the perceived operation of
the Food Stamp Program, from a cross-section of those most intimately
involved in the issues of hunger. Thus, the survey measures people’s
beliefs about the program, based on their personal and professional
experiences. Hearing from program administrators, applicants, recipients,
former recipients, low-income families in search of food assistance,
and community and legal services advocates provided a more comprehensive
view, and from more angles, than would be the case with a scientific
study.
Survey Results
This report has been developed from the responses
to all four surveys. Most of the results reported are based on a
survey question that provided a list of possible barriers to participation
and asked respondents to indicate whether they perceived each as
a barrier. A copy of that question is set forth on the following
page. Respondents were also given opportunities to respond to open-ended
questions and to comment on the Food Stamp Program generally.
The discussion of the responses is roughly organized
according to the order in which people enrolling in the Food Stamp
Program might encounter the potential barrier identified by the
survey. Where a food stamp rule or regulation exists with respect
to a particular aspect of the process, it is cited in that section.
Following a statement of the rule, survey responses are described.
As noted, the survey respondents included legal
services attorneys and paralegals, community based food stamp outreach
workers (outreach workers), LDSS program administrators, and clients
of food pantries and soup kitchens. Although generally the same
issues and areas of concern were included in the surveys administered
to all four groups, the questions were not completely identical.
That variation explains why not all four voices are heard in each
of the sections below.
Step One: The decision to Apply
-
It is axiomatic that food stamp program participation requires
first and foremost knowledge that the program exists. Whether
a lack of information about the Food Stamp Program operated
as a barrier to food stamp participation was a question asked
of all groups. While a minority of LDSS administrators identified
lack of information about the program as a problem (29 percent),
a majority of clients (65 percent), legal services staff (80
percent) and food stamp outreach workers (88 percent) thought
ignorance about the program was one reason for lack of participation.
A substantial majority in each group agreed that
many people do not apply for food stamps because they think, often
erroneously, that they are not eligible for benefits. This is one
of the two or three items on the list that all respondent groups
ranked similarly. This may be in large part the result of how complicated
Food Stamp Program eligibility rules have become, particularly after
the 1996 welfare reform amendments, as well as common misperceptions
about program eligibility (i.e., the belief that a household must
be in receipt of welfare in order to be eligible for food stamps).
The questions asking respondents to rank barriers,
as it was presented in the survey.
The majority in each respondent group also agreed that the stigma
attached to program participation was an enrollment barrier .barrier.
The receipt of public benefits of any kind is often viewed as a
mark of failure or inadequacy. Particularly during the years that
food stamp coupons were the currency of the program, many people
were reluctant to apply for benefits because they were so easily
identified in the grocery checkout line as "so poor that they
need a handout".
The stigma attached to food stamp program participation
was cited as an enrollment barrier by more social services district
staff than any other of the barriers asked about in the survey.
Nearly four-fifths (78 percent) of LDSS workers identified stigma
as a problem. Outreach workers also thought it a substantial participation
barrier, with 94 percent of these respondents answering that stigma
discourages people from participating in the program. A smaller
percentage of clients, though still a majority (61 percent), as
well as 80 percent legal services staff, concurred. It is hoped
that stigma may be less of an issue in the future with the switch
from food stamp coupons for the distribution of benefits to the
more anonymous EBT system.
With the exception of LDSS staff, a majority of
respondents in all groups agreed that one barrier to participation
is the mistaken belief shared by potential applicants that the receipt
of food stamps by one family may deprive another needy family of
benefits. Significantly, 70 percent of the clients answering the
survey cited this as a barrier. The reality is that since the Food
Stamp Program is an entitlement program, anyone who applies and
is determined eligible will receive benefits. Almost all food stamp
outreach workers (94 percent) thought the reluctance to take benefits
at the expense of others was a significant barrier. A smaller majority
of legal services program staff (66 percent) thought that the belief
in limited food stamp program benefits was a deterrent to application.
By way of contrast, only one-third (34 percent) of LDSS offices
believed this to be a barrier.
The fear of being reported to INS was cited as
an application barrier by 52 percent of the client respondents,
a substantial percentage when one considers that the survey was
not conducted in New York City. Only a minority (29 percent) of
LDSS offices thought that the risk of being reported to the Immigration
and Naturalization Service deterred applicants, though food stamp
outreach workers (88 percent) and legal services staff (80 percent)
saw this as a substantial concern for some potential applicants.
It should be noted that program participation studies conducted
after the immigrant restrictions of the 1996 welfare reform had
been in place for some time, confirmed that a much larger percentage
of children with non-citizen parents dropped out of the Food Stamp
Program than children of citizen households in similar financial
circumstances
Step Two: Getting the application
Rule:
Everyone has an absolute right to apply for food
stamp benefits. Under federal law, not only must the LDSS make the
food stamp application form readily available to anyone requesting
it, whether the request is made in person, by mail or on the phone,
the local office must encourage any individual expressing a need
for food to apply for the program. To guard against arbitrary denials
of benefits, local districts are prohibited from discouraging applications
even if they believe the applicant will ultimately be determined
ineligible for benefits.
Nevertheless, advocates report that LDSS receptionists
and eligibility workers sometimes advise potential applicants who
they believe will not be eligible for benefits that applying would
be a waste of time or might even result in adverse consequences
for the household. A major problem with these "informal or
verbal" denials is that the applicant is unlikely to complete
the application process or to be aware of the right to ask for a
fair hearing to contest the worker’s assumption of ineligibility.
Survey Results:
Two-thirds (62 percent) of the client respondents
ranked informal or verbal denials by LDSS as a problem, with almost
one in five (18 percent) reporting that they had the personal experience
of being told by an LDSS eligibility worker that they were not eligible
for food stamps even before they had the opportunity to submit an
application. Verbal denials were ranked as significant barriers
to program access by a substantial majority both of food stamp outreach
workers (94 percent) and legal services staff (86 percent).
Step Three: Submitting the application
Rule:
The law requires that LDSS accept applications
during all regular business hours. Local districts are not permitted
to restrict the acceptance of applications to certain hours of the
day. Yet, advocates indicate that the practice continues.
The ability to file a food stamp application as
early as possible is particularly important in the food stamp program
because benefits are provided retroactively to the date eligible
households file their applications. The food stamp application filing
date is also important because it starts the running of the 30-day
period during which the local district must evaluate program eligibility.
Like many states, New York uses a joint application
form that allows individuals to apply not only for food stamps but
also for Medicaid and public assistance. It is a complicated document,
8 pages long, and asks for information that the applicant may not
have readily available on the first day he/she appears at the local
district. However, federal food stamp law allows an applicant to
establish the food stamp application filing date by submitting an
application containing as little as the name, address and signature
of the applicant. If the applicant is homeless and has no fixed
address, the application can be submitted only with the name and
signature. The remaining documentation establishing eligibility
can be supplied after the filing of the application, most commonly
at the time of the eligibility interview.
Food stamp law, as well as civil rights law in
general, requires that applicants with language barriers be assisted
with their applications. Applicants with literacy problems or who
have disabilities must be accommodated in order that they may have
equal access to program benefits.
Survey Results:
A substantial majority of legal service program
staff (80 percent), outreach workers, (88 percent) and clients (63
percent) identified the local district practice of not accepting
applications on the first day the applicant appeared at the office
as a barrier. In fact, close to one fifth of client respondents
(19 percent) reported that they personally had been prevented from
submitting their application on the day they first appeared at the
local district office to apply. Nearly a third of the clients (31
percent) reported that they had been told in the past by LDSS staff
that applications would only be accepted on certain days or only
during certain hours of the day. At least two local districts reported
themselves that they limit the hours during which food stamp applications
will be accepted.
Almost three-quarters of legal services staff (73
percent) and over four-fifths of outreach workers (88 percent) ranked
literacy problems, the complicated application form and, for non-English
speaking applicants, difficulties with language access, as barriers
to program participation. Though not a majority, a substantial minority
of LDSS staff (46 percent) also cited literacy problems and the
complication of the application form as a barrier. However, less
than a quarter of the local district respondents (24 percent) thought
that language access for non-English speakers was an issue. More
than three fifths of the clients cited language access (61 percent),
literacy, and the complicated food stamp application form (62 percent)
as a problem.
Step Four: screening for emergency needs
Rule:
The law requires that the food stamp agency screen
the eligibility of the applicant for expedited food stamp
benefits when the food stamp application is first submitted. Expedited
benefits are food stamps made available to an applicant household
even before eligibility for on-going benefits is fully established.
Eligibility is based on the household’s lack of liquid resources
to meet their immediate nutritional needs. In New York, if the applicant
is found eligible for expedited food stamps, the benefits must be
provided within five calendar days.
Survey Results:
Among the emergency food clients who had applied
for food stamps, only 26 percent of the survey respondents recalled
being screened for expedited food stamp eligibility at the time
of application. To the additional question of whether, "during the
application process has anyone ever asked you [the client] if you
had a food stamp emergency," less than a third of the clients (30
percent) answered yes. Over three fifths (62 percent) of the clients
surveyed identified the failure of the local district to screen
for emergency food needs as a problem.
At least four fifths of both legal services staff
(80 percent) and food stamp outreach workers (83 percent) reported
that the local districts did not consistently screen applicants
for eligibility for expedited benefits.
Step Five: verifying eligibility
Documentation Requirements
Rule:
Applicant households must substantiate that they
meet each program eligibility requirement before benefits can be
granted. Most verification consists of the furnishing of documents,
for example birth certificates to verify age and citizenship status,
pay stubs to verify income, apartment leases or rent receipts to
verify shelter costs, etc. If an applicant household experiences
difficulties obtaining a particular document necessary to verify
eligibility, the LDSS is required by law to assist the household,
including paying for the document if necessary.
Because the rules governing food stamp eligibility
are complex, verification can be both time-consuming and burdensome
for applicant households. A rigorous federal "quality control"
system that regularly exacts financial penalties from states whose
error rates exceed the national average results in pressure on local
district workers to err on the side of requiring more documentation
than may be necessary or making determinations adverse to the household
if the documentation is uncertain.
Survey Results:
Without exception, all respondent groups cited
the volume of paperwork required in the processing of the food stamp
application as a deterrent to participation in the program. Nearly
three quarters (73 percent) of LDSS officials saw documentation
as an issue, making this one of the three biggest problems from
the point of view of program administrators.
Failure on the part of LDSS workers to assist applicants
in securing the necessary documents to establish eligibility was
cited by a substantial majority of legal services staff as a significant
barrier (87 percent), with an even higher percentage of outreach
workers (94 percent) concurring. A majority of the clients responding
(63 percent) also considered this an issue affecting participation.
More than six out of ten clients (63%) reported
that the LDSS workers' losing documents is a problem. A significant
percentage of legal services attorneys (80 percent) and outreach
workers (88 percent) concurred.
Fingerprinting Required to Verify Identity
Rule:
Shortly after federal welfare reform, New York
implemented the requirement that all members of food stamp applicant
households 18 years old and over submit to finger-imaging as part
of the application process. Finger-imaging of applicants is intended
to prevent households from duplicate participation in benefit programs
that had already been instituted in the State’s cash assistance
program.
Survey results:
Three fifths of both legal services staff and clients
considered the requirement that all adult household members submit
to finger-imaging to be an issue affecting food stamp participation.
Several clients reported that their entire household was denied
food stamp benefits because a single member, most often a boyfriend
or a child (children over 18 must also provide their fingerprint),
would not come down to the local district office for finger-printing.
Food stamp outreach workers ranked finger-imaging
as a barrier by a much wider margin (88 percent) than either the
client or legal services group. This may reflect the fact that outreach
workers often work with elderly applicants, who are reported to
have the most problem with the finger-imaging requirement and its
quasi-criminal overtone. Less than a fifth of LDSS offices (19 percent)
identified finger-imaging as a problem.
Step Six: the "face to face" interview
requirement
Rule:
Food stamp law requires that an adult member of
the applicant household appear at a face-to-face interview. It is
often at this point that the applicant submits the documentation
necessary to establish eligibility for the program. The face-to-face
interview must be waived in favor of telephone interviews or home
visits for households consisting entirely of elderly or disabled
members who cannot get to the office or appoint an authorized representative.
Face-to-face interviews may also be replaced by a phone interview
or home visit based on a case by case determination of hardship,
for example in cases of transportation difficulties, severe weather,
residency in a rural area or if an applicant’s work schedule
makes it impossible for the applicant to appear during LDSS office
hours.
Recently published federal regulations require
that LDSSs inform applicants of the right to have the face-to-face
interview waived in individual cases of hardship. Whether hardship
exists in a particular case is a determination to be made by the
agency, and documentation supporting the hardship determination
must be kept in the case file.
Survey Results:
the requirement itself
When asked about the face-to-face interview requirement,
an overwhelming majority of outreach workers (94 percent) considered
the requirement that applicants appear personally to be interviewed,
with the failure of local district staff to waive the requirement
in appropriate circumstances, an issue affecting food stamp participation.
A somewhat smaller percentage, but still a majority, of legal services
staff (66 percent) and clients (61 percent) considered the in-person
interview requirement to be a barrier.
interaction withInteraction With caseworkers
More than three-fifths of the clients responding
(66 percent) considered the failure of caseworkers to be helpful
in the application process to be a barrier. An even greater majority
of both legal services staff (86 percent) and outreach workers (89
percent) considered this to be a significant barrier to the access
of individuals to the Food Stamp Program. Local district staff members
were asked a more general question about "client conflicts with
caseworkers" that did not assign responsibility to either side.
Almost one third (30 percent) of the LDSS staff thought such conflicts
were an issue in the program.
interviews
Again, an overwhelming majority (88 percent) of
outreach workers considered inconvenient appointment times a significant
barrier to participation. Close to the same percentage (80 percent)
of the legal services advocates cited this as a problem.
Two-thirds (66 percent) of legal services staff
ranked failure to tailor appointments to client work schedules a
problem. To a question worded slightly differently, almost a third
(29 percent) of the LDSS staff responded that "inconvenient appointment
times" were an issue for working people who were applying or trying
to maintain eligibility for the Food Stamp Program. Very few client
respondents (63 percent) identified this as a problem.
It is pertinent to note that some districts reported
that they had taken steps to make application for the program easier
for working families. Two counties reported that they had regularly
scheduled evening hours. Fifteen LDSS districts indicated that,
at the request of clients, caseworkers were permitted to schedule
appointments either early in the morning or after the office closes
in the afternoon. One county stated its intent to make its office
available to caseworkers for extra hours, but had not yet begun
to do so.
getting to the interviews
In addition to problems with interview scheduling
,scheduling, problems with transportation, particularly in rural
counties, is also often cited as a barrier to program participation.
Many upstate counties have little if any public transportation so
that would be applicants must have a car or access to a car in order
to get to the interview. Slightly under three-fifths of the local
districts (58 percent) and over three-fifths of clients (67 percent)
considered a lack of transportation to be a barrier to program participation,
while four fifths of legal services staff (80 percent) and an even
greater majority of outreach workers (94 percent) thought so.
LDSS offices were asked questions about the availability
of public transportation to their sites. As one would expect, local
district offices located in cities reported that they were accessible
by public transportation. However, access to such service is likely
to be difficult for families living in outlying areas of the county.
Community-provided transportation services by the Offices of the
Aging or Community Action Agencies were reported available in two
counties to help people get to the LDSS offices. Eight rural counties,
however, had no public transportation whatsoever.
In order to provide better access, fourteen local
districts indicated that they have more than one office where people
may apply for benefits. Twelve local districts place staff in locations
other than the main office for at least one day each month.
Step Seven: Eligibility Determination And Use
of Benefits
Eligibility for Benefits
Rule:
The food stamp grant for which a household is eligible
is based on the USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), an estimate
of how much it costs to purchase a minimally adequate diet. Historically,
the TFP was patterned after the "Economy Food Plan", an
estimate of what is needed on a short-term basis to purchase food,
when funds are extremely low and "…when the cost of food
must be lower than the average food expenditures for low income
families." The relatively meager food stamp benefit provided
through the use of the TFP, which at the very most only allows the
household to spend $1.30 per meal, per person, has been thought
to contribute to the lack of participation in the program.
The Food Stamp Program defines a "food stamp
household", that is, the group on whose behalf the monthly
grant will be issued, as those people who live together and buy
food and prepare meals together. People need not be related to constitute
a food stamp household. The amount of benefits for which the household
will be eligible is based on household size and monthly income.
To be eligible for benefits, the household’s assets and resources
cannot exceed $2000 ($3000 if someone in the household is elderly).
Only the first $4650 in the fair market value of an automobile is
excluded from being counted as a resource. Anything over that amount
must be counted against the asset limit.
Survey Results:
Resources
The stringent automobile resource rule, which limits
the value of a car that a household can own and still be eligible
for food stamps, was ranked as a barrier to program participation
by a majority of respondents in all groups. Outreach workers were
nearly unanimous (94 percent) in characterizing the automobile
resource limit as a substantial barrier to the participation of
otherwise financially eligible households in the Food Stamp Program.
Well over three-quarters of legal services (80 percent) and LDSS
staff (78 percent) agreed. A majority (57 percent) of the clients
responding also considered the ownership of a car that exceeded
the resource limit a problem.
A slightly higher percentage of clients (59 percent)
considered ownership of countable resources other than cars a barrier
to participation in the FSP. Outreach workers were again nearly
unanimous (94 percent) in ranking the general resource limit a barrier
while a smaller percentage of legal services (73 percent) and LDSS
staff (63 percent) agreed.
Timeliness of Determinations
Rule:
If the household is determined eligible for expedited
assistance, food stamps must be provided within 5 days from the
date the application is submitted. In all other cases, the local
district has 30 days to process the food stamp application, determine
eligibility and provide benefits. The application period may be
extended for up to 60 days if necessary to obtain documentation
the local district needs in order to determine eligibility.
Survey Results:
About three in five clients responding (61 percent)
ranked local district delays in issuing food stamp benefits as a
problem. A substantial majority of legal services staff (73 percent)
and an even greater majority of outreach workers (88 percent) considered
benefit issuance delays to be a serious problem.
Using food stamps
Once provided with food stamps, the household must
find stores that accept them. Substantial anecdotal evidence exists
that this is particularly difficult in the rural parts of the State.
Slightly more than four-fifths of outreach workers (83 percent)
thought that access to places that accept food stamps was a problem.
A smaller majority of legal services staff (67 percent) and client
respondents (60 percent) agreed. Only a small minority (12 percent)
of LDSS staff considered access to be a problem.
Narrative Responses to Open-Ended Questions
The survey instrument not only asked respondents
to react to a list of issues and problems commonly associated with
Food Stamp Program administration but also gave them the opportunity
to comment on the Food Stamp Program in general and to provide narrative
answers to certain questions. Some highlights from the responses
of the different groups follow.
Clients’ Comments
Some respondents took the opportunity provided
by the survey to comment on the Food Stamp Program in general. Overwhelmingly,
they said that it is a good program: some called it a "godsend"
or a "lifesaver". Just as overwhelmingly, however, they felt that
the benefit amounts are not adequate. Many participants replied
that they were at the food pantry because the food stamps are not
enough to feed their family. "Pantries should be a supplement, not
the main source of food" but "around the 2nd or 3rd week of the
month you are struggling to survive and you end up at the Food Pantry."
A number of clients, including SSI recipients and
senior citizens, stated that the minimum $10 benefit was too low.
"Only ten given, so I refused them." "Does not help the senior citizen
when they go on Social Security." "Seniors sometime only get $10
a month; what kind of help is that?" "I only receive $10 in
stamps. I have a 17 year old grandson. I can hardly keep food."
Many clients also expressed frustration with how
DSS treated them. "They make you feel like it's coming out of their
pocket. They could treat the people kinder. It's hard for the people
to go in." "Would like to see employees of DSS more kinder and emphatic
[sic]. Would like them to understand conditions of men and women
who turn to them for help in getting assistance." "Just got tired
of being discouraged and the stress from the dance they put you
through." "They treat you like you're begging for food stamps."
"It's an uncomfortable experience. We feel put down when we're there."
Clients would like to see more flexibility in how
they can spend food stamps. "I recently had a infection in my gums.
I needed mouthwash and could not get it. Basic health care items,
toilet paper, toothpaste should not be restricted."
Several consumers reported frustrations with the
income limits. "My husband made a few dollars too much." "My boss
gave me a 75 cents raise which put me over the income level, though
the raise doesn't really make up for the food stamps." "They need
to lower their income guidelines." "Problem because food stamps
are based on what you make, not on what you bring home." "Makes
$2 too much."
Nevertheless, a number of respondents, including
non-participants, also spoke very positively about the benefits
of food stamps. "I think that food stamps serve a very good purpose
and because of them many children do not go to bed hungry. I grew
up during the depression years and know what they was like. Thank
God we have assistance plans that help those in need." "I thank
God for food stamps for me and my family."
Some of the changes recommended by participants
responding to the survey are matters of current federal law. For
example, many respondents felt that the income guidelines are too
low and exclude too many needy people. Other participants pointed
out that the gross income test excludes many working households,
suggesting that only net income should count, and that income limits
should take into account the age of the children.
Food stamp law does not allow diets required by
a participant’s medical condition to count as a deductible
medical expense. A number of participants thought that this was
a problem and suggested that people on special diets should get
more food stamps due to the high cost of the food they must buy.
COMMENTS OF LEGAL SERVICES STAFF
Among several open-ended questions, the survey
asked legal services staff who served particular populations, such
as the elderly or disabled, to report what in their view might be
the particular barriers to participation in the Food Stamp Program
for these groups.
For the low income elderly, the main barrier cited
was the stigma attached to program participation in what is seen
as a "charity" program, exacerbated by the implications
of requiring applicants to submit to finger-imaging. Legal services
staff also stated that the burdensome documentation requirements,
the difficulty that many elderly people have in getting to the food
stamp office and the fact that benefits were often just too meager
to warrant all that trouble were substantial problems discouraging
the elderly from participation.
As for households containing immigrant members,
as might be expected, legal services staff blamed the immigrant
restrictions contained in the 1996 welfare reform law for the drop
in participation even by those family members remaining eligible
for program benefits. The unavailability of bilingual staff at local
DSS offices and the lack of materials in languages other than English
and Spanish were also cited as barriers to participation by the
foreign born.
The inappropriate imposition of work requirements
on disabled applicants, particularly emotionally or mentally impaired
individuals whose disabilities often went unrecognized by local
DSS staff, was cited as a barrier to participation for this population.
Legal services staff also considered a lack of transportation and
accessibility to be barriers in local DSS offices, which interfered
with the ability of the disabled to participate in the program.
For low income wage earners, the barriers most
frequently cited by Legal Services staff included, as might be expected,
the failure of local DSS offices to have extended hours; the onerous
documentation and verification requirements that were not only too
time consuming for people juggling work and children but embarrassing,
revealing to employers and landlords that the family was seeking
help from a "welfare" program; and, considering all these
and other problems, the benefits were not considered substantial
enough to warrant the effort it took to get them. Farm workers were
seen as having particular difficulties accessing benefits, with
the lack of outreach to labor camps and transportation hardship
seen as major barriers.
Legal services staff were also asked whether there
has been an increase in the local district’s use of work sanctions
over the years since welfare reform. Work sanctions are periods
of ineligibility imposed when the LDSS determines that an applicant
or recipient has failed to comply with the work related requirements
of either the cash assistance or food stamp program. Over two-thirds
of the legal services programs responding said that there had been
an increase. National studies have shown that people sanctioned
from welfare programs often do not return to the program even after
they become eligible again.
Food stamp sanctions range from two to six months
of ineligibility, depending on whether the applicant or recipient
has run into problems before. According to legal services staff,
applicant or recipient conduct for which local districts impose
sanctions runs the gamut, from job quits, to failures to fully complete
job searches (sometimes requiring the applicant or recipient to
contact up to 20 employers a week for several months), to missing
a single scheduled meeting with a caseworker. Legal services staff
report in some local districts that strict compliance with program
rules is required so that even arriving a few minutes late for a
meeting can result in the loss of two months of food stamps, more
if the recipient had been sanctioned once before.
COMMENTS OF FOOD STAMP OUTREACH WORKERS
Before the list of potential barriers was presented,
the survey asked outreach workers what they believed might be the
barriers to participation in the Food Stamp Program for particular
sub-groups of the low income population.
For the low income elderly, the most common barrier
cited by outreach workers was that they either cannot or do not
want to go to the "welfare" office. In a close second
was the perceived invasion of privacy. Many people, the elderly
in particular, tell outreach workers that the finger-imaging requirement
makes them feel that they are being treated like criminals. Other
barriers reported were stigma, pride, they cannot find required
documentation, they believe they will only get $10, they do not
want to take benefits away from more needy households, and they
can’t understand the application.
Language was perceived as the greatest barrier
for households containing immigrant members. Since eligibility requirements
for immigrants is very complicated and sometimes hard to document,
many potentially eligible immigrants may not be able to understand
or communicate the necessary facts. They frequently cannot understand
what is required of them, and find the notices confusing. Other
barriers cited were that many immigrants do not understand that
they may be eligible, workers misapply the rules, and some ethnic
groups express shame for needing assistance.
For low income workers, the main barrier cited
by outreach workers was the limited office hours at local DSS offices.
Nine of the 17 workers responding to the survey mentioned this.
Two workers stated that applicants frequently have two conflicting
appointments. LDSS staff usually schedule appointments by mail without
consulting with the participant. Most applicants and participants
either do not know they may ask for the appointment to be changed,
or are unable to reach the correct worker to request a change. Other
barriers mentioned were documentation and verification requirements,
people are "too busy surviving", no child care at DSS,
car value, transportation, thinking they not eligible because they
are working, and incorrect calculation of income.
Outreach workers were asked what their counties
had done well to increase FS participation. Three workers said that
their LDSSs had streamlined the application process to make it quicker
or more accessible to working people. These changes included scheduling
appointments instead of using a first-come first-served system,
extended hours, flex time, retraining receptionists, and revising
the flow within the office to be more efficient.
Some outreach workers were pleased with the results
of combining food stamp and Medicaid offices, so that people can
apply and recertify for both programs at the same time and interact
with only one caseworker. Some counties work with their Offices
for the Aging to encourage seniors to apply, and encourage mail-in
applications. One county found that applications of seniors applying
by mail went more smoothly when they assigned one worker to handle
all of them.
Office location and accessibility are very important.
One outreach worker reported that when the LDSS needed to move from
the County Office Building they selected a location ten miles closer
to the main population center in the county, on a public transportation
route, and provided parking. This kind of planning can make an enormous
difference to needy people trying to utilize to services offered.
COMMENTS OF LDSS STAFF
The survey of LDSS staff ended with the question,
"Is there anything you wish you could change about the Food Stamps
Program? What would that be?"
The most popular recommendation was to exempt cars
from the list of resources that count against eligibility. Nine
staff suggested either a total or limited exemption, under which
vehicles of newly unemployed applicants would not be considered
as an asset for a certain period of time.
A substantial number of suggestions were offered
to reduce the complexity of food stamp program rules. The most common
recommendations were to simplify the application and eligibility
process, to automate the application system, and to make food stamp
rules consistent with those for cash welfare. With respect to automation,
LDSS workers suggested automating food stamp eligibility for households
of disabled or elderly adults living alone and receiving SSI, and
creating a screening process to determine eligibility for expedited
benefits that the applicant can complete on his or her own.
Some districts wanted to eliminate or change the ABAWD restrictions,
which require complicated tracking by the LDSS. One worker, when
asked what she would changes about the FSP, responded, "ABAWD
— ineffective for the entire country. A large investment of
money in our area for little return."
The local districts also had recommendations for
improvement of the program for the benefit of particular populations.
Three offices thought that elderly recipients should get higher
benefit levels. Other suggestions included that the elderly should
be given cash rather than food stamps (to eliminate the concern
with stigma) and that the food stamp rule prohibiting participation
in the program by students and striking workers should be eliminated.
Three LDSS respondents suggested ways to make the
food stamp program stricter while two wanted to make the program
more generous. Those seeking stricter rules suggested that work
requirements be imposed on parents once their youngest child turns
3 years old (rather than 6, which is the current rule); that food
stamps be prevented from being used to buy candy or soda; and that
all recipients apply for child support as a condition of assistance,
regardless of whether their source of income is disability, unemployment,
workers' compensation, or any other form of assistance. The LDSS
staff proposing more generous rules that food stamp program eligibility
should be raised to 200 percent of the poverty line and the minimum
benefit level for elderly and disabled households should be increased
from the current $10.
Recommendations
The intrinsic value of the Food Stamp Program is
reflected in its role as a nutritional entitlement, responding to
the needs of those who are hungry and others who are at risk of
becoming hungry. Since 1977, it has been the most effective response
to the problem of hunger in America. The benefits of the program
are invaluable, as food stamps prevent hunger among low-income Americans
and provide them the resources for nutritious meals for children,
the elderly and disabled. It is therefore vital that we make the
program accessible to those in need of nutritional assistance.
The survey demonstrated broad agreement among all
groups about many of the barriers that hinder access. While solutions
are not simple, there are many steps that can be taken at the federal,
state, and local levels to improve access. The authors recommend
the following changes based on insights received from the responses
to this survey and the opportunities for reform that are currently
available. Our recommendations for improving access are presented
according to the level of government that we believe to be in the
best position to implement the proposed change
Recommendation for Federal Changes to the Food
Stamp Program
Congress is now taking up the task of reauthorizing
the Food Stamp Program. This is an opportunity for legislators to
review the program and consider a number of policy changes that
will help make the program work better for low-income people.
The Farm Bill recently approved by the House includes
Food Stamp Reauthorization, and a Farm Bill including Food Stamp
Reauthorization is being prepared for Senate consideration this
fall. During the reauthorization of the Farm Bill, we must recognize
the importance of the Food Stamp Program and ensure that it continues
to be a nutritional safety net that acts as the first defense against
hunger. This provides an opportunity to make the following recommended
changes, which we view as necessary to improve access to the program
for low-income individuals.
We recommend that Congress and USDA:
The decision to Apply
-
Extend QC criteria beyond payment accuracy to other
important considerations such as success in delivering benefits
to needy eligible households, customer service, retention
rates, and state compliance with expedited service standards.
These are standard measures of success for any program.
-
Extend transitional benefits, for families moving from
welfare to work, to six months. This would eliminate the
need for households to reapply at the same time as they are
making the transitional from cash assistance.
Getting and Submitting the Application
Verifying Eligibility
-
Extend QC criteria beyond payment accuracy. The QC
system as currently operated puts more emphasis on documentation
than on the actual need of the applying household. While payment
accuracy must necessarily be the centerpiece of the QC assessment,
the system's penalty provisions should be redesigned.
-
Institute a twelve-month eligibility redetermination process
with no required interim reporting. Most other programs
serving low-income families, such as Medicaid, SCHIP, SSI,
determine when a review of the recipient's circumstances is
needed and ask her or him to provide information or to appear
at its office. If the recipient does not appear, or does not
cooperate in the review, her or his benefits are terminated.
Using this model for food stamps would give
states the flexibility to manage their caseloads by aligning
the food stamp redetermination process with that of other
benefit programs. Households would continue to be considered
eligible until the state makes a determination that the household
either has become ineligible or has failed to cooperate in
a review of its eligibility.
the "face to face" interview requirement
-
Develop innovative ways to improve access to underserved
populations and working families, such as facilitating
enrollment outside of the welfare office, and allowing applications
over the Internet. The models created and implemented by the
states in enrolling low-income children in SCHIP programs
could provide an excellent starting point for similar initiatives
in Food Stamp Program enrollment.
calculation of the monthly benefit
-
Eliminate the excess shelter deduction cap for families
with high shelter costs. The current artificial cap on
the shelter deduction has the effect of treating some money
that a family must spend on housing costs as if it were available
to meet its food needs - and reducing the family's food stamp
benefits accordingly. This is particularly important to New
York State, which has the highest shelter costs in the country,
as counted by the Food Stamp Program. Since there is no policy
basis for the existence of the cap, it should be eliminated
completely.
eligibility determination and the issuance of
benefits
-
At a minimum, Congress should institute a $5,000 limit,
tiered to household size, and exempt all retirement accounts,
education savings accounts and Earned Income Tax Credits.
The food stamp asset limits have not been adjusted since 1985;
the Consumer Price Index has risen about 60 percent since
then. Paradoxically, families applying for only food stamps
in many states face more restrictive food stamp asset rules
than they would if they applied for cash assistance and food
stamps.
-
Eliminate the work requirement for participation in the
program — the Food Stamp Program is the only nutrition
program requiring compliance with special work rules. Households
receiving TANF are already satisfying rigorous work rules
for that program. Other households receive only a small food
stamp benefit to supplement their food budget. Conditioning
this nutrition subsidy on complicated work requirements is
ineffective and inefficient. Work requirements should not
be part of any federal nutrition program, including the Food
Stamp Program.
-
Eliminate special rules for non-citizens; students; singles;
childless adults between the ages of 18 and 50; those who
are on strike; and those who have been convicted of a drug-related
felony. The provisions are unduly complicated, difficult
to administer, discourage eligible people from participating,
and do not efficiently serve the purposes intended.
inadequacy of benefits
Recommendations for State and County Action
The state has great leeway in establishing the
policies and the extent of oversight that will govern the localities
in the administration of the Food Stamp Program. In recent years,
OTDA has taken advantage of many policy options intended to make
the Food Stamp Program more accessible, yet not every locality takes
full advantage of these policy decisions. There are many additional
measures both the state and localities could take to improve the
accessibility of the program and help needy people obtain better
nutrition.
Generally
-
The State and local districts should participate in efforts
to improve the national food stamp program, including simplifying
eligibility requirements and application process, and increasing
access for all immigrants. The state should support the detailed
recommendations for federal action to strengthen the food
stamp program as set forth herein.
The decision to Apply
-
Increase efforts to make the general public aware of eligibility
rules and, in particular, that households who work may still
be eligible for food stamps. State outreach funding, which
is matched by the federal government, should be increased
for the Nutrition Outreach and Education Program to support
community groups that promote participation in federal nutrition
programs and assist needy people seeking to participate. We
commend New York State for its ongoing efforts to educate
residents about the value of the food stamp program, including
funding public service announcements and community outreach
staff.
Getting And Submitting the Application
screening for emergency needs
-
Ensure that all workers, including reception staff and workers
who are trained to divert applicants from assistance, understand
both the importance and the legal obligations surrounding
the Expedited Food Stamp screening.
verifying eligibility
| 
