SNAP Benefits Should Remain for Students
By Albert B. Kelly
No one likes cheaters and no one likes the person who takes
what they’re not entitled to receive- whether they’re wearing a $3,500 Armani suit
and developing casinos and hotels or wearing ill-fitting clothes from the local
thrift store and working under the table. What each might take and how the
rules get applied to each if they’re caught is certainly open for debate, but
the bottom line is that few of us have much tolerance for those who cheat.
This no doubt explains some of why the administration is
undertaking a rule change related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) aka “Food Stamps”, which would require people who receive TANF benefits
(Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) to pass a review of their income and
assets to see whether they are also eligible for SNAP benefits- something
people in most states don’t have to do currently.
Until now, it was assumed that those who qualified for TANF
were also eligible for SNAP and this made some sense since poverty and need in
one area of a person’s life generally means poverty and need in other areas and
when we’re talking about essential needs, access to food is at the top of the
list. But the USDA sees this change as one that will save money ($2.5 billion) by
eliminating what they say is widespread abuse of the program. That translates
into dropping roughly 3 million people from SNAP according to some of the
numbers I’ve seen.
Living in a community with a poverty rate of 32.2% (42% for
children under 18) with a median household income of $34,135 and a rent burden
(i.e. spending more than 30 percent of household income on rent) of 35.7%, my
first kneejerk reaction was to view these changes as cruel and punitive which
they ultimately may be, but I also have to account for the fact that no one
likes cheaters, including me.
When it comes to programs like SNAP and TANF and many other
forms of assistance, there is process of vetting to establish that applicants have
genuine financial need and this is as it should be. Take a quick look at many
of the cases in NJ brought by the various county social service boards to
administrative law judges and a fair number are about recovering benefits, including
SNAP, from individuals who didn’t report income, hid assets, or failed to
report changes in their status in order to keep receiving assistance. In some
cases we’re talking about tens of thousands of dollars.
I mention this to say that there is a point to be made about
abuse and fraud and it is a valid one as far as it goes. What is not valid is
to paint a picture with a broad brush so that those in need are automatically
suspect by virtue of their need in the same way that it wouldn’t be valid to paint
a picture of all real estate developers using write-downs as collecting
corporate welfare on the backs of the middle class.
The most troubling thing with these rules changes is the
impact on children. As of May, there were roughly 12,000 children in Cumberland
County receiving SNAP assistance. The food insecurity rate among children in
Cumberland County is approximately 18% with no less than 87% eligible for the
free and reduced meal program. Currently if a parent receives SNAP benefits,
all of their children who attend school automatically qualify for free school
meals and the same holds true for those receiving TANF assistance.
With the rule change, what happens to those children whose
parents, for whatever reason, are still eligible for TANF but fall just below
whatever income eligibility for SNAP? Do these children simply have to go
without breakfast or lunch or both? We’re talking about young developing minds
and bodies that need proper nutrition. If the rule change results in children
going without adequate food, the impacts will be devastating.
We know that a lack of proper nutrition and an empty stomach
have direct impacts on how successful a child is academically in the classroom.
We also know that poor nutrition in childhood has life-long health consequences
that cannot be mediated later in life. I
understand the need to eliminate fraud and abuse, but meeting that need
shouldn’t come at the expense of children. In-school meals should be separate
so that the sins of adults, whatever they may be, aren’t visited upon their
children.